Music Industry and its fans wake the f up.

The industry is on target to generate $19.5 Billion in the U.S. alone this year.

The industry uses drugs and alcohol to control artists. And they can now make more money off of (shitty) artists like Mac Miller with him dead than alive.

There's a reason why an artist who can't walk to the grocery store can get anything at any time of the day. Record labels allow a chain of drug dealers to have access to their artists.

You can't read a contract if you're high.
You can't track your royalties if you're high.
You can't manage your own schedule if you're high.
You can't check the people around you're if you're high.

Drugs are in the industry for a purpose. If you're expecting the industry to change - you'll be waiting for the rest of your life.
 
Is this kid trying to be the new Tipper Gore or some shit?
 
P⊚WER² said:
The industry is on target to generate $19.5 Billion in the U.S. alone this year.

The industry uses drugs and alcohol to control artists. And they can now make more money off of (shitty) artists like Mac Miller with him dead than alive.

There's a reason why an artist who can't walk to the grocery store can get anything at any time of the day. Record labels allow a chain of drug dealers to have access to their artists.

You can't read a contract if you're high.
You can't track your royalties if you're high.
You can't manage your own schedule if you're high.
You can't check the people around you're if you're high.

Drugs are in the industry for a purpose. If you're expecting the industry to change - you'll be waiting for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

Well. Not really. Record companies exist to make money (obviously) and so they have a vested interest in keeping their artists alive and well, simply because a live artist produces more work. No record executive on the planet would want their most famous artists to die. Sure they'd make money off the compilations and re-issues but those are limited in comparison to what they'd make off new work. I imagine if you asked anyone at Geffen, they'd much rather have Cobain alive and making money for them now, than having to depend on re-issues and re-masters of Nirvana's back catalogue.

Drugs and art have gone hand in hand since man first started drawing dinosaurs in caves. Is there anything sinister in a record company having their own dealers? Maybe, but to play devil's advocate for a moment. If you were a record exec and your biggest star had a secret drug addiction. Would you risk allowing them to go out on the street and buy God knows what from God knows who. Or would you get someone in who was discreet and whose drugs were clean?

Record companies are always portrayed as evil monsters who exist only to suck the life out of innocent young artists. Are they all evil though? If an artist signs with a record company isn't it their responsibility to look at whatever contract they're signing, or if they can't then at least get a lawyer to look it over for them? In the end all most record companies do is provide promotion and distribution. It's up to the artist whether or not they want to fill themselves full of drugs, fuck every manipulative skank that crosses their path or blow their heads off with a shotgun.
 
Winter-John said:
Well. Not really. Record companies exist to make money (obviously) and so they have a vested interest in keeping their artists alive and well, simply because a live artist produces more work. No record executive on the planet would want their most famous artists to die. Sure they'd make money off the compilations and re-issues but those are limited in comparison to what they'd make off new work. I imagine if you asked anyone at Geffen, they'd much rather have Cobain alive and making money for them now, than having to depend on re-issues and re-masters of Nirvana's back catalogue.

Drugs and art have gone hand in hand since man first started drawing dinosaurs in caves. Is there anything sinister in a record company having their own dealers? Maybe, but to play devil's advocate for a moment. If you were a record exec and your biggest star had a secret drug addiction. Would you risk allowing them to go out on the street and buy God knows what from God knows who. Or would you get someone in who was discreet and whose drugs were clean?

Record companies are always portrayed as evil monsters who exist only to suck the life out of innocent young artists. Are they all evil though? If an artist signs with a record company isn't it their responsibility to look at whatever contract they're signing, or if they can't then at least get a lawyer to look it over for them? In the end all most record companies do is provide promotion and distribution. It's up to the artist whether or not they want to fill themselves full of drugs, fuck every manipulative skank that crosses their path or blow their heads off with a shotgun.
Click to expand...
That's not how this works. At all. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,645
Messages
55,431,633
Members
174,776
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top