RSS Feed Editorial Emissions

Major Labels and Youtube, what gives?

posted February 11, 2009, 4:30 pm by dscanland | Filed Under Editorial | comment 1 Comment

Tags: Pete Yorn, Youtube, MP3, labels


I’ve had a major beef with this for a long time. Why are major labels such pricks when it comes to Youtube embedding? Not just one of them but all labels including Warner, SonyBMG, Universal and EMI. I need help on the logic behind this. As a label, wouldn’t you want your bands, albums and songs spread throughout the blogosphere and internet like wildfire? Sure, there are the odd people out there than can figure out how to rip a Youtube stream into an MP3. But guess what, the quality sucks! And that’s 1/100 people.So what could be the reasoning that you can’t embed a classic Poison track or a Weezer video in a webpage? Instead, drive the traffic to Youtube’s website? What purpose does that serve? You are only going to lose potential viewers due to an additional click. You also run the risk where people upload a recorded copy of a video and you have to have people checking this stuff out and deleting the music or video. UPLOAD THE ORIGINAL AND LET PEOPLE WATCH IT! It will work people. Youtube is meant to be the ultimate viral platform. Let your music get out and filter through to the people who want to watch and listen

Maybe this makes the labels feel like they have control over their music, even though they don’t. You can still download ANY release off of P2P sites.

Another side note, why don’t major labels allow an MP3 or two off of an album to be posted on a few MP3 blogs? I was just emailed about a new Pete Yorn track that is off of his new album. I’m not going to blog about it unless I’ve got something solid to give to people. Either an MP3 or a Youtube video.

So, if you can shed some light on this behavior I would be forever grateful. And if you can change this stupid, blind and idiotic behaviour then I would be appreciative as well, as would a world wanting new music. Until then, thank the good lord for indie labels that are gaining steam in this time of musical upheaval.

Comments

One Response to “Major Labels and Youtube, what gives?”

  1. SolitaryMan on February 13th, 2009 4:45 pm

    Dinosaurs clinging to the old ways…what more is there to say? So long as the laws work in their favor, they’ll keep treating their artist’s music like personal property even though this grand thing called the internet keeps proving them wrong. Then there’s the moral debate about how many individuals are required to create the music, market it, produce it in a live setting etc, and that they all need to be paid. I mean, it takes years and years for engineers to learn and master their equipment, it takes just as long for musicians (sometimes) to learn their craft, and not just anyone can rig a lighting system for a live arena show.

    You do get the feeling, over the past decade, that things will eventually be based on indie elements only; local shows, local and internet promotion, and so on. No more world tours (where’s all that money coming from if fewer and fewer people are paying for the music?), no more seeing mass-marketing at your local Sam Goody or FYE (hell, these stores will eventually disappear at this rate), no more Metallica! It’s all for the best, I think, but thousands of people are hurting and will continue to hurt while the rest of us, the fans and the critics and the casual listeners, benefit from the crumbling of big-money empires. It all depends on which side you’re on, and if you’re fully prepared for the change to come.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if local governments started claiming ownership of musics, like some do with writings, art and films, taxing them and making sure the money earned is distributed to the right people.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Music Emissions music community
Music Emissions
Rate, Recommend, Review

© 1999 - 2013 Music Emissions
Acceptable Use | Privacy Policy | Built by Scanland Development
Facebook | Twitter