Mixed reception for U2 boss’s speech
Jim Carroll
During his keynote speech at this week’s MIDEM music conference, U2 manager Paul McGuinness blamed technology and telecommunication companies for the record industry’s current woes.
McGuinness said that these companies had profited hugely from illegal downloads and that it was time for them to share the cash.
“They have built multi-billion dollar industries on the back of our content without paying for it,” he argued. “It’s probably too late for us to get paid for the past, though maybe that shouldn’t be completely ruled out.
“The partnership between music and technology needs to be fair and reasonable. [Internet service providers] telcos and tech companies have enjoyed a bonanza in the last few years off the back of recorded music content. It is time for them to share that with artists and content owners.”
He also said that the music industry needed to “shift the focus of moral pressure” away from individual illegal downloaders and focus on “the multi-billion dollar industries that benefit from these countless tiny crimes”.
McGuinness, who negotiated an iPod deal for his clients U2 with Apple in 2004, believes that many of those behind the ascendant tech companies are showing “a disregard for the true value of music”, something embedded in their “entrepreneurial, hippy values”.
McGuinness’s speech predictably received plenty of plaudits from the record industry, but others were critical of his comments.
Techdirt’s Mike Masnick pointed out that the real problem was that “just about every other industry has realised that there’s plenty of money to be made in the music industry”, yet “the segment of the market selling plastic discs is unwilling to take some simple steps to change its business model.”
Music industry observer Bob Lefsetz said that the speech showed – yet again – why “the music industry has to face reality”. People still want music, said Lefsetz, but “they don’t want to pay 1990s prices for it.”
The words “boat”, “missed” and “the” should be re-arranged to deliver a good kick up the arse to this troglodyte.
His thoughts were so off-base I was driven to put up a sweary blog post about it. I’ll summarise quickly:
Firstly, the vast majority of downloads of In Rainbows were via the legit site, not via pirate services, as far as I can make out.
And secondly, as that Techdirt article noted:
‘The oil industry’s success is built on the backs of the automobile industry,
but does the automobile industry demand that oil companies have a moral
obligation to pay them? Computer makers have built a multibillion dollar
industry on the backs of the internet and software companies — yet, no one
says they have a moral obligation to pay those companies anything. Travel
guides have built huge business based on hotels and restaurants around the
globe, but does anyone think that those travel guides owe the hotels and
restaurants money for doing so? Hell, the recording industry itself was built
off the backs of complementary goods such as radio, yet when they paid radio
stations, it was known as payola and outlawed.
[...] None should be pressured into saving the other from its own missteps.’
There are few things in life more irritating than multi-millionaires complaining that they’re not getting enough money.
in summary “I am stinking fucking rich, and I want more money”
It was interesting to see Paul McGuinness making this kind of speech and coming out all guns blaring. Guess it means U2 won’t be doing a Radiohead with their new album…..
Jim, I think their last 2 albums demonstrate that they’re far more interested in being successful than being artistically-interesting.
I think their best album by some distance is “Passengers: Original Soundtracks Vol 1″ but it didn’t do the business so they turned their back on it and headed for the stadiums.
Conor – i think there was a general feeling that the last album, which was really a bad photocopy of the album before that, did them no favours. I saw them at Croke Park and I was bored silly – but not as bored silly as the band looked. There will ALWAYS be an audience for them and maybe they’ll be happy with that. Then again, wouldn’t it be amazing if they came out of the traps with an album which actually took some chances for a change?
1- They move their millions to a tax haven in Holland while Bono continues to ask US, who have a fraction of his wealth, to pledge money to help his pet-project, African Poverty.
2- They bring Lola Cash to court to get some trousers and a hat back. Absolutely pathetic.
3-P McGuinness’ objection to illegal downloading because he can’t CONTROL it.
4- They haven’t made a decent album since ‘Achtung Baby’ and I will bet my life their next album mwill not improve on the turgid, dreary rock of their last 2 albums.
Granted, their reinvention in 1991 was stroke of genius, Zoo TV tour was incredible and Achtung Baby is a masterpiece but they really should split after that as watching their creative decline in the last 15 years is depressing.
That would be amazing, Jim.
I just don’t understand it. They’re in a position most musicians and songwriters would kill for – to be financially secure enough that they can make ANY kind of music they want and not have to worry whether or not it sells in large quantities.
Why have they been ploughing this depressingly meat ‘n’ two veg furrow when they could do anything? They could have their pick of producers and they do – how on earth do you get an album as dull as “All That You Can’t Leave Behind” from producing supremoes Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois?!
They seem to record music based on what they think their stadium-going audience would like. I think that’s always a bad road to take.
I’d love to see them forget about their audience and make an album that says “We don’t care whether you like this or not. This is us, this where we’re at and WE love it.” I hope they can be brave enough to do that.
I think their best album by some distance is “Passengers: Original Soundtracks Vol 1″
Pretentious.
I dunno Jim, I wouldnt hold my breath. I reckon U2 will be like the Rolling Stones in 10 years, releasing an irrelevant album and touring the greatest hits. Unless they get a new drummer of course, then perhaps they might start trying to push some boundaries again….maybe…
He is right.
Ever since music went vinyl the industry has struggled to make the best use of technology.
maybe when both mcguinness and u2 become relevant again, i’ll take notice of their woes
meanwhile here’s to their next stadium / album filler
I too was bored to tears by those Croke Park shows. The one I was at had playground poets ASH in support, so it was pretty much shit from the moment we walked onto the hallowed turf. But by God, I never knew that the smell of shit gets worse the more you look at it.
They were also pretty atrocious at Slane if memory serves me right. Fair enough Bono’s father was sitting up there with JC saying ‘that’s my boy’, but even that didn’t excuse how bloated, predictable and unoriginal this once great band have become. The support bill and Jason McAteer’s right foot had far more class than four bloated millionaires pretending to enjoy themselves that night.
Like Conor above, “Passengers” was the last decent thing they’ve put their name to. It’s a vastly underrated disc, as is “Pop”, which gave us a pair of great nights at Lansdowne Road. “Pop” is also a cracking album, the nearest U2 have ever got close to being nice and sleazy, but what galls me – and it’s where U2 and me finaly seperated – was that they were so ashamed of its rough edges and almost original sound that they re-recorded tracks from it in a nice and squeeky clean manner for one of their ‘best of’ collections. As far as I know they ignored it completely for their last Christmas cash in compilation.
Anyway, we could be here for years arguing when they got shit and when they and their fabulously wealthy manager completely lost the run of themselves, but we’ll never be listened to, for as long as they can build their fucking U2 tower, destroy what’s left of the Liffey’s Georgian skyline and as long as Americans will sing along to their songs in Mass, everyone will still think the sun shines out of their holes, and people will continue to buy their albums (in a traditional manner) and go to their gigs. So, I don’t know why McGuinness even bothers giving out, it’s not as if U2 fans are getting any younger is it? The band have become so comfortably numb in knowing that their audience and their market doesn’t do ‘edgy’ that they will never be musically relevant again – as the last decade in U2 land has proved. So why should McGuinness care about getting paid for the past, when his band have clearly disowned their own past as relatively decent musicians and songwriters?
8- quint i thint the case where they brought someone to court for stealing from them and writing a book about it is actually fairly cut and dry.
If she thought she could pull one over the U2 machine i think she may have found out the hard way she could not.
I think it was more of a gag to stop her and punish her for trying to publish a book about the band,this has been commented on is several articles.
agreed on the rest of it,music quality control not very tight over the last while.
I just don’t understand it. They’re in a position most musicians and songwriters would kill for – to be financially secure enough that they can make ANY kind of music they want and not have to worry whether or not it sells in large quantities
Which probably shows up more than anything the conservative nature of U2 and most (please note most) big rock stars. They just DO NOT want to or are able to be anything other than what they know and has served them well to date. It also perhaps shows up the fact that U2 were never truly radical or groundbreaking – they were and remain a solid meat-and-two-veg rock band. Admirable as that may be, don’t let their incredible, unerring ability to attach themselves to the cutting-edge every now and again fool you into thinking otherwise.
Is McGuinness not doing what every decent manager should possibly do and protect his artist? I think that’s what a manager is supposed to do,protect his artist.
Bands from the 60′s,70′s didn’t have the sort of protection and got bugger all despite selling millions of records all over the world.
He is talking about copyright and it’s legal value to a large extent.
Why should he not protect his atrists copyright,he is talking about technology companies using content that they do not own to create profits.
This blog has copyright right here
http://www.irishtimes.com/about/terms_conditions/
under point 10 you cannot use the content of this site without written permission,should i be able to do what i like with the content? dosen’t matter because i can’t and it is illegal to do so.
This is the same reason the writers guild of america are on strike to protect future revenue on the internet and other unknown technology,is that a fair argument or not?
if someone can explain why he should let sites use his artists content for free please do,if i reprint the irish times verbatim and call it the “daily times” my guess is i would last about 5 minutes before i got sued…same deal.
more info here from a slightly different angle
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/28/mcguinness_telco_blast/
Good point CJ because it points up the big problem for the music industry.
You and me know full well that The Irish Times Inc will come after us with all guns blazing if we tried something like that because they would know exactly what we did (ie we cut and pasted the content).
The problem for the music business is that it is unable to properly police illegal use of its content or to enforce its copyright because it has become an accepted thing to do. People know that stealing Irish Times Inc copyrighted material is wrong – but they dont see the same thing with MP3s
The reason why people are treating McGuinness’s remarks with such scorn is that he is too late – the time for the music business to react was 10-15 years ago. As I seem to recall Jim pointing out again and again, they did react – they sent in the lawyers and the rest is history.
It may too late for the artists that have recording contracts and are signed but it isn’t for those who have yet to get on the ladder and find there way.
Traditional contracts are a thing of the past so why not at least let those who are about to involve themselves get the best deal possible or should it be left to itunes or whatever to decide how and why.
Rasputin – I think you nailed it there. The music industry made all the mistakes which every single other industry will strive to avoid. They were the unfortunate guinea pigs.
CJ – No doubt. Any act who sign an old-fashioned contract in the future – ie one which has huge advances in lieu of profit (and risk) sharing – deserve all they get.
Fake Steve Jobs on the speech:
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/bonos-manager-says-bono-does-all-work.html
maybe u2 could take inspiration from this when making their next video…support your local record shop d-_-b
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HNJt5ADHzIY
Does anyone know where it is possible to find the blog that Bob Lefsetz wrote about McGuinness’s keynote speech online?
Thanks
Emily – there have now been 2 speeches by Paul McGuinness on the music industry and ISPs and subsequently 2 blogs by Bob Lefsetz.
You’ll find Lefsetz’s first blog, reacting to McGuinness speech at MIDEM in January, at http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2008/01/29/mcguinness-idiocy/
His latest blog, on the speech which McGuinness made the other day in Hong Kong (btw McGuinness’s full speech is here – http://www.u2.com/news/index.php?mode=full&news_id=2230 ), was emailed out this morning but is not yet online at his site. I can email it to you, so let me know if you want me to do that.