930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Brian_Wallace on November 13, 2007, 12:07:00 pm
-
You know, if you're honest with yourself, when you think of all the merchandise-crazy/rip-off-the-fans artists out there, like Kiss, The Rolling Stones, Morrissey, etc. you're going to have to put Radiohead in there too.
We don't want our previous six albums competing with our new DELUXE one! (http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/32491)
The interesting part is:
"That the two box sets are coming out at the same time in December and AT THE SAME PRICE had already led some fans to believe that EMI is trying to compete with its former charges' independent release."
So let me get this straight. It will cost the same to buy a box set of Radiohead's previous six albums (plus "I Might Be Wrong") as it does to buy a special (!), deluxe (!) version of "In a Rainbow of Debt" that contains the aforementioned album on 8-track along with discarded, freshman-year graphic design test sheets and specially lamenated Thom Yorke pubic hairs?
What a ripoff. I think it's sad that Radiohead is preying on urban hipsters who think that Radiohead is their "Beatles" (man, they SPEAK to me...) Poor, over-educated, misguided souls who have fifteen credits cards but MUST have the "In Rainbows" box set housed in free-range, brushed Cedar. Folks who HAVE to have everything Radiohead releases. You know, people who in 2007 (!) decide that they want to buy a turntable, collect vinyl and play "Guitar Hero."
I think it's smart of EMI to price their box set at the same price as the "In Rainbows" garbage. You have a choice. You can buy "A special made-to-order 'discbox'" that "will contain the album on CD and two 12" heavyweight vinyl records with artwork and lyric booklets. The box will include a second enhanced CD which contains 8 additional tracks, as well as digital photos and artwork."
or (with the same money) you can buy seven CD's of which the first three actually have some great SONGS on them.
<img src="http://static.nme.com/images/05825_155810_374479.JPG" alt=" - " />
"I need more money for cool, mirrored shades so I don't have to make eye-contact with you deluded fools!"
Brian
-
wow, you seem to have a monopoly on hate. i feel cheated.
-
Why is it "sad that someone is preying on urban hipsters"? That sounds like a wonderful thing to me.
-
Did your parents not hug you as an infant?
-
Why does anyone care what he has to say anyway? It's all so fucking boring to me.
-
Originally posted by bearman:
Why does anyone care what he has to say anyway? It's all so fucking boring to me.
because they bitched and bitched and bitched and bitched about dupek every day, and now they want him back (so funny). now b dubbs has taken his place.
-
You know, if you paid more attention to the news, you'd know that Radiohead had nothing to do with this box set, and that EMI went forward with it without the band's blessing.
You don't think that entitles the band to be a little bit annoyed with their label?
Can we also remind you that the band gave their album away for free?
They're not preying on anybody. Doesn't it suck to be outraged all the time?
-
Originally posted by callat703:
You know, if you paid more attention to the news, you'd know that Radiohead had nothing to do with this box set, and that EMI went forward with it without the band's blessing.
You don't think that entitles the band to be a little bit annoyed with their label?
Of course, the band didn't have anything to do with it! But don't you think what they are releasing for $80 or whatever is worth more than what the band is releasing for $80? Talk about packaging waste! When you have to charge $80 for a deluxe version of something that you gave away for free, it says something about the band. You can't polish a turd.
Brian
-
Originally posted by Brian_Wallace:
Originally posted by callat703:
You know, if you paid more attention to the news, you'd know that Radiohead had nothing to do with this box set, and that EMI went forward with it without the band's blessing.
You don't think that entitles the band to be a little bit annoyed with their label?
Of course, the band didn't have anything to do with it! But don't you think what they are releasing for $80 or whatever is worth more than what the band is releasing for $80? Talk about packaging waste! When you have to charge $80 for a deluxe version of something that you gave away for free, it says something about the band. You can't polish a turd.
Brian [/b]
They're selling a special edition to the people who want it. They're making them to order and shipping them globally to collectors, vinyl enthusiasts, and fans.
Why do you care?
-
Originally posted by callat703:
You know, if you paid more attention to the news
really? is this what the news has been talking about these days?
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by callat703:
You know, if you paid more attention to the news
really? is this what the news has been talking about these days? [/b]
Clever. I meant the story that he posted.
-
You know, I've said this back in the Dupek days, and I'll say it again:
If you don't like what Brian posts, then simply don't read it, and if you do, don't respond. You're only feeding him more and more reasons to keep posting, and it's not like your defense of Band X will change his mind.
Personally, I like Brian; it gets boring to read the same rave reviews of the same bands over and over again on this board. Personally, I think he's generally off the mark and a bit nutty, but I almost always enjoying reading his rants.
But if he really grates on you, why bother giving in? You ask why he cares about slagging Radiohead; I'd ask why you care to defend them so much? It's like dealing with religious fanatics in here that can't see any flaws or opposing viewpoints when it comes to their favorite band.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
You know, I've said this back in the Dupek days, and I'll say it again:
If you don't like what Brian posts, then simply don't read it, and if you do, don't respond. You're only feeding him more and more reasons to keep posting, and it's not like your defense of Band X will change his mind.
Personally, I like Brian; it gets boring to read the same rave reviews of the same bands over and over again on this board. Personally, I think he's generally off the mark and a bit nutty, but I almost always enjoying reading his rants.
But if he really grates on you, why bother giving in? You ask why he cares about slagging Radiohead; I'd ask why you care to defend them so much? It's like dealing with religious fanatics in here that can't see any flaws or opposing viewpoints when it comes to their favorite band.
Why bother to post this, then? Self-defeating argument.
-
Actually, good call. Brian just PM'd me and said all this debate has him reconsidering his stance on Radiohead fleecing fans, rock music made before 1998 and the virtues of playing Guitar Hero vs. playing an actual guitar. Sorry I wasted everyone's time.
We won the good fight!!!!
Originally posted by callat703:
Why bother to post this, then? Self-defeating argument.
-
I think this is just evidence of the Emperor wearing no clothes. Everyone cites Radiohead as the most uncompromising, independent, least corporate band out there. The band with the most integrity.
However, when their former record label can release their entire catalog for the same price as a money grab/"deluxe edition" it really smacks of hypocrisy.
Brian
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
because they bitched and bitched and bitched and bitched about dupek every day, and now they want him back (so funny). now b dubbs has taken his place.
a few people wanted dupek to stay originally (jag, etc) ... those same people still want dupek back, but i haven't seen some shifting tide
i, for one, like brian awlalclel
-
Originally posted by Brian_Wallace:
I think this is just evidence of the Emperor wearing no clothes. Everyone cites Radiohead as the most uncompromising, independent, least corporate band out there. The band with the most integrity.
You mean Fugazi.
-
Originally posted by kcjones119:
Originally posted by Brian_Wallace:
I think this is just evidence of the Emperor wearing no clothes. Everyone cites Radiohead as the most uncompromising, independent, least corporate band out there. The band with the most integrity.
You mean Fugazi. [/b]
Ok. You got me there. The most uncompromising, independent, least corporate band out there who once played the MTV Beach House.
Brian
-
Originally posted by Brian_Wallace:
Ok. You got me there. The most uncompromising, independent, least corporate band out there who once played the MTV Beach House.
i loled
-
Originally posted by callat703:
They're selling a special edition to the people who want it. They're making them to order and shipping them globally to collectors, vinyl enthusiasts, and fans.
It's just that while we've all come to expect things like that from labels, it seems a lot different coming from a band. You don't think that spending lord knows how much time and effort to repackage an album you've already released to sell at an outrageous price smacks of caring more about money than music? I think that the point Brian is trying to make is that it's a bit hypocritical for Radiohead to get pissed at a money-grubbing label when they're acting like one themselves.
-
Amen to Reod Dai.
That whole notion of "radiohead gave their album away for free" is bullshit. They cleared $10,000,000.00 by some estimates - in the first week! They didn't "give something to their fans" they merely figured out a way to get all the cash themselves (not that there's anything wrong with that). All the news about their upcoming tour indicates that they will be playing the Mega-Domes. It's all good and fine that they have circumvented the labels to get all the green for themselves, but let's not pretend that they are doing anything other than turning themselves into an autonomous label.
-
I guess I still don't see a problem in creating a product, made to order, for those that want it. That's all the discbox is.
Personally, I say more power to them for banking the money themselves, rather than letting a label do it.
-
The issue I take with these things are the bonus tracks. I can understand releasing a jazzed-up version of an album for the vinyl enthusiasts, with gatefold covers and exclusive artwork.
But when you also package exclusive tracks, that seems to be screwing the consumer. Say I'm a huge Radiohead fan and dished out $15 for the download. It's a total slap in the face to then be expected to buy an $80 collector's set just to get 5 extra songs.
And I think Brian's main point is that for $80 you can get a hell of a lot more from the record company that's "screwing" Radiohead than you can from the band that supposedly loves their fans.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
The issue I take with these things are the bonus tracks. I can understand releasing a jazzed-up version of an album for the vinyl enthusiasts, with gatefold covers and exclusive artwork.
But when you also package exclusive tracks, that seems to be screwing the consumer. Say I'm a huge Radiohead fan and dished out $15 for the download. It's a total slap in the face to then be expected to buy an $80 collector's set just to get 5 extra songs.
And I think Brian's main point is that for $80 you can get a hell of a lot more from the record company that's "screwing" Radiohead than you can from the band that supposedly loves their fans.
if you were a "huge" radiohead fan, you probably would be buying this for your collector's set of other radiohead memorabilia that you had to have. for the average fan, this seems utterly ridiculous. im sure you can find all the songs to download somewhere - granted the quality wont be as good.
and how is radiohead screwing their fans. if you dont want the stuff - dont buy it. its as simple as that. they let you take the album for free - (or whatever you felt the price was worth) - but people still complain. it really doesnt matter if they priced it at $60 youd still have the same complaints how its not fair that you paid $15 and didnt get the other songs.
isnt that what b-sides and all other things are all about. you already own the damn album and then pay $20 on a ridiculous import single just to get the coveted song. (or so i did when i was younger). i have no regrets.
I look at this the entirely same way. If i had to have it, I'd buy it. but since its not the dandy warhols - and lord knows id pay any price for something like that - ill be passing.
-
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
Did your parents not hug you as an infant?
Maybe pa hugged him too much...just say'n.
-
Personally, I'll download the songs if I feel like it, because I'm not a huge Radiohead fan. Hell, I wouldn't have downloaded the new one if I wasn't able to pay $1 for it.
It's not even really worth arguing over. Some of us don't seem to realize that not everyone can afford to catch a show every night of the week or buy every CD and vinyl single a band releases to have a complete collection, or that forcing a fan to buy three different versions of an album to get the one exclusive song each retailer is offering is in no way rewarding their loyal fan base. And the few of us that can realize what a rip-off it is ;)
If Radiohead actually cared, they take the Wilco approach, and offer free downloads to anyone that bought the one version of their CD in stores. That's fan friendly.
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
blah blah blah
-
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
but since its not the dandy warhols - and lord knows id pay any price for something like that - ill be passing.
I'd pay $80 for a limited-edition, deluxe boxed set of Zia McCabe's best "Get 'Em Out!" moments lovingly collected in a special, leather-bound volume.
$90! $100, I'd pay.
Brian
-
why not just go the brian jonestown massacre approach and have every song available for download for FREE. it seems to be working for them.
screw the Wilco approach - this is even better for people who dont wanna pay anything.
Originally posted by nkotb:
Personally, I'll download the songs if I feel like it, because I'm not a huge Radiohead fan. Hell, I wouldn't have downloaded the new one if I wasn't able to pay $1 for it.
It's not even really worth arguing over. Some of us don't seem to realize that not everyone can afford to catch a show every night of the week or buy every CD and vinyl single a band releases to have a complete collection, or that forcing a fan to buy three different versions of an album to get the one exclusive song each retailer is offering is in no way rewarding their loyal fan base. And the few of us that can realize what a rip-off it is ;)
If Radiohead actually cared, they take the Wilco approach, and offer free downloads to anyone that bought the one version of their CD in stores. That's fan friendly.
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
blah blah blah
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Brian_Wallace:
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
but since its not the dandy warhols - and lord knows id pay any price for something like that - ill be passing.
I'd pay $80 for a limited-edition, deluxe boxed set of Zia McCabe's best "Get 'Em Out!" moments lovingly collected in a special, leather-bound volume.
$90! $100, I'd pay.
Brian [/b]
you wouldnt be the only one. i know plenty of people that would pay obscene amounts of money for that.
-
As a consumer, I'd agree. I'd love to be able to get all of my music free. But let's face facts...that's not the way the world works. I do I commend BJM for doing it that way...that takes a lot of balls and a real passion for getting your music out there.
I can't wait until bands charge you face value for admission to their show, and then try to charge you extra for the encore.
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
why not just go the brian jonestown massacre approach and have every song available for download for FREE. it seems to be working for them.
screw the Wilco approach - this is even better for people who dont wanna pay anything.
-
how about every ticket and drink at the club be free? coat check too. and parking. the club rips off the music lover.
-
You have to remember that the Radiohead Discbox is actually £40. So it's really not that expensive. It's just unfortunate that the dollar has gone to shit...
And xneverwherex is spot on regarding b-sides. All the import singles for any given Radiohead album would probably cost at least as much as the Discbox. So it's actually easier this way to get all the b-sides at once (assuming that they won't be releasing different b-sides on the singles).
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Personally, I say more power to them for banking the money themselves, rather than letting a label do it.
I agree with you.
The issue is that Radiohead spent many years in the "label" world building the fanbase so that they could pull off a stunt like they did. For a band just starting out - it is exponentially more difficult to do the same thing.
Radiohead has created a great model for the platinum-selling band that wants to stick it to the proverbial man. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of bands in the same position to follow their lead.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by callat703:
Personally, I say more power to them for banking the money themselves, rather than letting a label do it.
I agree with you.
The issue is that Radiohead spent many years in the "label" world building the fanbase so that they could pull off a stunt like they did. For a band just starting out - it is exponentially more difficult to do the same thing.
Radiohead has created a great model for the platinum-selling band that wants to stick it to the proverbial man. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of bands in the same position to follow their lead. [/b]
I completely agree.
-
I quickly want to point out that the box set is priced at ₤40. The only reason it costs $80 to Americans is the extremely poor exchange rate.
-
ooops, sorry for repeating earlier information about the exchange rate. I still think that's left out of every conversation and people are quick to declare Radiohead evil.
-
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
Originally posted by Brian_Wallace:
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
but since its not the dandy warhols - and lord knows id pay any price for something like that - ill be passing.
I'd pay $80 for a limited-edition, deluxe boxed set of Zia McCabe's best "Get 'Em Out!" moments lovingly collected in a special, leather-bound volume.
$90! $100, I'd pay.
Brian [/b]
you wouldnt be the only one. i know plenty of people that would pay obscene amounts of money for that. [/b]
She posed nekkid and preggo for Suicide Girls but I'm assuming that's common knowledge to fans of hers.
-
Originally posted by TheREALHunter:
She posed nekkid and preggo for Suicide Girls but I'm assuming that's common knowledge to fans of hers.
Yes, but in my scenario, there would be "a second enhanced CD which contains 8 additional" pictures of her naked.
Brian
P.S. Plus some rare pregnant B-sides.
-
Radiohead should be selling these releases by auction at Christie's or Sotheby's and they should be available to the general public by exhibition at the world's finest museums and cultural centers.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by callat703:
Personally, I say more power to them for banking the money themselves, rather than letting a label do it.
I agree with you.
The issue is that Radiohead spent many years in the "label" world building the fanbase so that they could pull off a stunt like they did. For a band just starting out - it is exponentially more difficult to do the same thing.
Radiohead has created a great model for the platinum-selling band that wants to stick it to the proverbial man. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of bands in the same position to follow their lead. [/b]
great observation.
-
can i point out how folks think that for an athlete - someone paid to chase a ball - it's 100% natural for them to make $12 million dollars a year. it's natural. this can only be achieved by driving a hard bargain - i.e. milking the team organization for everything they can, the cost then past on to the consumer, the fans. BUT when artists make big bucks off their success, their "hypocrisy" is pure evil. you'd think some people here are against musician becoming wealthy.
Originally posted by walkonby:
because they bitched and bitched and bitched and bitched about dupek every day, and now they want him back (so funny). now b dubbs has taken his place.
they're interchangeable.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
can i point out how folks think that for an athlete - someone paid to chase a ball - it's 100% natural for them to make $12 million dollars a year. it's natural. this can only be achieved by driving a hard bargain - i.e. milking the team organization for everything they can, the cost then past on to the consumer, the fans. BUT when artists make big bucks off their success, their "hypocrisy" is pure evil. you'd think some people here are against musician becoming wealthy.
Probably because we're of the notion that the arts should exist purely for aesthetic reasons and not be tainted by the stench of commerce, which is reflected in the line you hear over and over "I made this album for myself, not for anyone else."
I also think that nowadays it's a lot harder and requires a greater commitment to be a professional athlete than a professional musician.
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Probably because we're of the notion that the arts should exist purely for aesthetic reasons and not be tainted by the stench of commerce, which is reflected in the line you hear over and over "I made this album for myself, not for anyone else."
i too like my artists lean and hungry, but you can't fault them for not wanting to live in a slum forever.
maybe artists that become popular should sign up for an integrity-protecting trust fund? for a few years after they make it big, they're given enough to survive and maybe buy a new guitar. the rest is stashed away until they're ready to sell out, thus preserving their hunger... </not being serious>
Originally posted by Relaxer:
I also think that nowadays it's a lot harder and requires a greater commitment to be a professional athlete than a professional musician.
can't entirely agree there. as a guitar player, i'm sure you appreciate the time and dedication is takes to learn an instrument, write good songs, etc.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
as a guitar player, i'm sure you appreciate the time and dedication is takes to learn an instrument, write good songs, etc.
Screw that. It's 2007. Just get "Guitar Hero."
<img src="http://techdigest.tv/south-park-guitar-hero.jpg" alt=" - " />
Brian
-
There's a big difference between being lean and hungry, and buying a 7 million dollar house in West Hollywood, like one indie hero just did.
-
Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but I thought this was pretty relevant. From a recent Wilco blurb on MySpace:
Additionally, as most of you probably know, there's a European tour edition of Sky Blue Sky out now. It contains a bonus disc with the following:
1. The Thanks I Get
2. Letâ??s Not Get Carried Away
3. One True VIne
4. Impossible Germany (Live in Denver Sept. '07)
5. Hate it Here (Live in Denver Sept. '07)
We have some copies available in the store now.
And lest you think we're trying to sell you the same item twice -- if you already own the disc, the tracks are available for free download. Go to http://wilcoworld.net/sbs/ (http://wilcoworld.net/sbs/) for instructions.
:D
-
Previously, our office went out for a holiday lunch and WE had to pay. Now we're having a potluck. Which means no restuarant, and eating shit food cooked by my co-workers. And no wine or beer to wash it down with. Yes. I feel cheated.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
There's a big difference between being lean and hungry, and buying a 7 million dollar house in West Hollywood, like one indie hero just did.
who?
-
Everyone's favorite singing Scientologist
http://www.tmz.com/2007/11/11/scientolocouple-picks-up-new-pad/ (http://www.tmz.com/2007/11/11/scientolocouple-picks-up-new-pad/)
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
There's a big difference between being lean and hungry, and buying a 7 million dollar house in West Hollywood, like one indie hero just did.
who? [/b]
-
IT HAS BEEN NINE YEARS SINCE WE'VE SEEN A NEW KISS ALBUM. ANY PLANS TO GET BACK INTO THE STUDIO?
The record industry is in such a mess. I called for what it was when college kids first started download music for free -- that they were crooks. I told every record label I spoke with that they just lit the fuse to their own bomb that was going to explode from under them and put them on the street.
There is nothing in me that wants to go in there and do new music. How are you going to deliver it? How are you going to get paid for it if people can just get it for free? I will be putting out a Gene Simmons box set called "Monster" -- a collection of 150 unreleased songs. KISS will have another box set of unreleased music in the next year.
The record industry doesn't have a f---ing clue how to make money. It's only their fault for letting foxes get into the henhouse and then wondering why there's no eggs or chickens. Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning. Those kids are putting 100,000 to a million people out of work. How can you pick on them? They've got freckles. That's a crook. He may as well be wearing a bandit's mask.
Doesn't affect me. But imagine being a new band with dreams of getting on stage and putting out your own record. Forget it.
BUT SOME ARTISTS LIKE RADIOHEAD AND TRENT REZNOR ARE TRYING TO FIND A NEW BUSINESS MODEL.
That doesn't count. You can't pick on one person as an exception. And that's not a business model that works. I open a store and say "Come on in and pay whatever you want." Are you on f---ing crack? Do you really believe that's a business model that works?
SO WHAT IF MUSIC JUST BECOMES FREE AND ARTISTS MAKE THEIR LIVING OFF OF TOURING AND MERCHANDISE?
Well therein lies the most stupid mistake anybody can make. The most important part is the music. Without that, why would you care? Even the idea that you're considering giving the music away for free makes it easier to give it away for free. The only reason why gold is expensive is because we all agree that it is. There's no real use for it, except we all agree and abide by the idea that gold costs a certain amount per ounce. As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy. And that's what going on.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071114/music_nm/kiss_dc_1 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071114/music_nm/kiss_dc_1)
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
can't entirely agree there. as a guitar player, i'm sure you appreciate the time and dedication is takes to learn an instrument, write good songs, etc.
Ok a lot of musicians have achieved their success by practicing for years and years and honing their craft and blah. But there's plenty of musicians/singers who came out of nowhere and became popular really fast simply because their style and current tastes matched up.
You can't say that about pro athletes. For one thing, you can either run 100 yards in 4.35 or you can't. Plus almost all of them has spent their lives dedicated to sports, practicing, training, games, etc. Even the douchiest of them, Deion, Terrell, Irvin, (naturally Cowboys) worked their asses off for years to reach the highest level. Hardly anyone just stumbles into a pro sports career.
I can't even remember what we were talking about.
-
"jealous much?" - heather chandler
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
IT HAS BEEN NINE YEARS SINCE WE'VE SEEN A NEW KISS ALBUM. ANY PLANS TO GET BACK INTO THE STUDIO?
There is nothing in me that wants to go in there and do new music.
Say it ain't so, Gene! No more Sinatra-level interpretations like your version of The Prodigy's "Firestarter?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yErZz5p45t8)
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
SO WHAT IF MUSIC JUST BECOMES FREE AND ARTISTS MAKE THEIR LIVING OFF OF TOURING AND MERCHANDISE?
Well therein lies the most stupid mistake anybody can make. The most important part is the music.
This coming from a man who has almost entirely made his living off touring and merchandise and not music. The hypocrisy is amazing. It's no coincidence that he also once said "Dress British, Think Yiddish."
Brian
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Everyone's favorite singing Scientologist
http://www.tmz.com/2007/11/11/scientolocouple-picks-up-new-pad/ (http://www.tmz.com/2007/11/11/scientolocouple-picks-up-new-pad/)
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
There's a big difference between being lean and hungry, and buying a 7 million dollar house in West Hollywood, like one indie hero just did.
who? [/b]
[/b]
Uh...who said Beck is an indie hero? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Beck has been on a major label since his first album (released on DGC Records, otherwise known as Geffen Records). Granted, he put out one album on K Records, and one on Flipside...but his last two were on Interscope. He's been associated with Geffen for a long, long time.
EDIT: Beck's first record was actually One Foot in the Grave, but it was released on Flipside after Mellow Gold.
From Wiki:
Geffen Records was founded in 1980 by music industry businessman David Geffen who, in the early 1970s, had formed Asylum Records. Geffen stepped down from Asylum after being diagnosed with a cancerous cyst but, following confirmation that the growth was benign, returned to work and struck a deal with Warner Bros. Records to create Geffen Records. Warner provided 100 percent of the funding for the label's operations, while Geffen retained 50 percent of the profits, and distributed its records. (International distribution outside the US and Canada, meanwhile, moved from WEA in 1982 to CBS until 1990.)
-
anybody who is not celine dion is indie, nowadays.
-
gene simmons - a douche and a dinosaur.
The only reason why gold is expensive is because we all agree that it is. There's no real use for it, except we all agree and abide by the idea that gold costs a certain amount per ounce. As soon as you give people the choice to deviate from it, you have chaos and anarchy. And that's what going on.
no, idiot, the reason why gold has value is because of scarcity. also, it's a physical good that can't be digitally reproduced at zero cost. he has no idea what he's talking about... again.
-
Call me a socialist, but I don't think anybody should make more than 500K in a year. Musician, athlete, ceo, whoever.
-
how much does seth make?