Man Against Machine: Garth Brooks Calls YouTube “The Devil”
On Monday, November 17th when Garth Brooks appeared on Access Hollywood promoting his upcoming tour dates and the release of his new album Man Against Machine, he was pretty loose lipped about his hatred for certain elements of music technology, and how it has taken a lot of the power out of the hands of artists. This philosophy is what is behind the country singer refusing to release his music to iTunes and streaming services, and is the theme behind his “Man Against Machine” album title and opening track. Brooks has set up his own iTunes rival called GhostTunes which allows artists to sell their music however they want, including as whole albums or in bundle packages.
When Garth was asked what he thought about Taylor Swift’s public feud with Spotify, he responded,
I think a lot of people are going to start following. (If) music starts standing up for itself, it’s going to get a lot better. And you know guys, there’s some big friends of ours in music that we need to stand up to to. I mean, if iTunes is going to tell you how to sell your stuff, and it’s only going to go this way, don’t forget who’s creating the music and who should be doing the stuff. And I’m telling you, the devil? Nice people…YouTube. Oh my gosh. They claim they’re paying people a lot, but they’re not paying anything either. And people get millions and millions and millions of views and they don’t get squat. Trust me, songwriters are hurting, so I applaud Ms. Taylor, I applaud everyone for standing up for the songwriters because without them music is nothing.
Garth then talked about a meeting he had with YouTube where he tried to persuade them to completely remove anything having to do with him from the format. None of Garth’s music or videos can be found on the video giant, but live videos from concerts, etc. have made it on the service from his recent concert appearances.
You can’t get out of it. I had a sweet meeting with them. They were all fired up. They were the sweetest, and they’re all like twelve. They’re the sweetest kids. So young. And so I got the first question, “How do you get out?” And silence. You don’t. You don’t get out. Thanks for our wonderful someone judging on this one on the government. But yeah, it’s totally backward right now. But music, if the artists will just keep hammering away, unify, stick together, then music will become the king again, which is where it should be. Music should always be first.
YouTube has just launched its own subscription service to rival Spotify and other streamers, after a prolonged period of trying to negotiate for music rights from organizations representing independent artists and other publishers.
Whether it’s ultimately successful for Garth Brooks or not, he appears to be bound and determined to do music his way and fight against the current in the way technology is serving music to the public. But with Taylor Swift, and now Jason Aldean and Justin Moore pulling music from Spotify, Garth Brooks is no longer alone, and country is the genre emerging as the one leading the charge.
November 17, 2014 @ 8:27 pm
I’ve always liked Garth Brooks, but he is absolutely insufferable. All he does is talk about how it’s the music that matters, but there is no one performer in country music who is more in it for the money. This reflects in his lengthy deal with Walmart, his multiple releases and rereleases of greatest hits and live albums
November 17, 2014 @ 8:47 pm
I think he’s got a point; and he needs to get with the times. My little youtube channel has crappy cell videos of artists who are near and dear to me. If the artist requests to take it down, it’s down as I think they should be first. If youtube asks me to take it down, I will holler first amendment.
Because it’s the wild west of the internet, we need to figure this out. How do we provide a vehicle to properly compensate the artists while offering an open way to discover them?
(hypothetically) If I’m supposed to take down all of the media on my blog, how do I showcase bands who don’t have Viacom behind them?
November 18, 2014 @ 10:05 am
You think the first amendment forces Google to host and transmit your video on your terms? You’re delusional.
You have a better first amendment case against the artist – your crappy cell phone video is your work, not theirs, and you have the right to do with it what you please.
But Google/YouTube is not at all required to participate in what you want to do. They provide a service, they dictate the terms of that service. If you want to use that service, you have to play by their rules.
November 18, 2014 @ 11:39 am
Actually. The artists do have a right to have you take down a crappy cell phone video. It’s against regulations to film any part of a performance.
November 18, 2014 @ 12:24 pm
What regulations are you talking about?
How a recording of a concert can be used is subject to the rules of the venue and the preference of the group being recorded, but there is no law or regulation restricting it.
November 17, 2014 @ 8:55 pm
Just old man mentality fighting the inevitable – technology, evolution, change. I saw Dave Grohl last week basically said I don’t care how or if you pay for our music, just get to the concerts. If I was an artist, I’d trade the cost of album sales (which according to Jamey Johnson and the Dixie Chicks aren’t that much anyways) for exposure and make my money touring.
But this is 90’s Garth conducting business like it was the 90’s – mailing it in and living off his legacy instead of evolving or pushing the boundaries and doing anything remotely artistic. Just go back to making physical exclusives for Walmart and quit trying to stop the machine (progress).
November 17, 2014 @ 9:29 pm
I understand that there are legitimate issues here but he does come across like the buggy whip makers complaining about the horseless carriage.
On a side note is the picture of the guy at the top and the picture of the guy at the bottom the same person? The photoshopped airbrushed thing is laughable. It looks like a mixture of Tim McGraw and what Garth wished he looked like.
November 17, 2014 @ 10:27 pm
Not to refute your underlying point, but there’s a big difference between Dave Grohl and rock music, and Garth Brooks and country. Yes, Dave can throw caution to the wind when it comes to recorded music because he can get compensated at concerts. Since he writes all his own songs, he doesn’t hurt as much if his main revenue stream is concert tickets. But if that’s Garth’s main revenue stream, that means the songwriters who wrote Garth’s songs get paid nothing. Garth only co-write three of the songs on his latest record. So if it doesn’t sell, those songwriters don’t get paid no matter if he’s selling out stadiums or not.
This is the fundamental, traditional difference between country and rock. The whole way songwriting rights were developed was the fault of country music, principally Acuff/Rose, while in rock most of the performers write their own songs. This may be the reason we’re seeing the heart of the Spotify backlash occurring in country.
November 17, 2014 @ 10:52 pm
Excellent point. I never thought of the model that compensates the songwriter though publishers. Maybe more money upfront and song autonomy for the writers? I’m not familiar with the intricacies of the current business model.
November 18, 2014 @ 12:31 am
I think that there are two main reasons why rock performers write more of their own songs than country singers:
1) Rock focuses bands rather than individual singers, and so a professional songwriter can simply be added to the band.
2) Country music lyricism has traditionally featured a greater degree of complexity than rock lyricism.
November 18, 2014 @ 7:07 am
“Country music lyricism has traditionally featured a greater degree of complexity than rock lyricism.”
No It hasn’t.
In fact if comparing a Neil Diamond record, a Styx record, or a Simon and Garfunkel record to most country records exactly the opposite is true, in the same sense that Rock is generally more musically complex than country.
to be fair, Country music requires an inherent “poeticness” if you will, I.E. “hear that lonesome whippoorwill” from Hank, “if this is what you refer to as love, then I’d rather you didn’t love me” from Willie, Conway’s “I may never get to Heaven but I didn’t miss by much” written by Bill Anderson, these lyrics are poetic, but they aren’t “complex”
November 18, 2014 @ 1:10 pm
Simon and Garfunkel were more folk than rock.
Most rock lyrics, particularly in hard rock, have always been very much free-form. Country music, on the other hand, has traditionally required storytelling and poetry, which automatically makes the lyrics more complex than free-form.
November 18, 2014 @ 7:26 pm
Not one bit of truth in that. I love country. I love it when the lyrics are good… But country is more about the voice and it’s sincerity. They’d be better off without songwriter’s. I love Roger Alan Wade – when he sings his own songs. I love so many Kristofferson songs more-so when he sang them himself. This isn’t without exception but rock music, at least the stuff I listen to like Alice In Chains, is more beautifully dark and metaphorical than most country which is often literal. This, in my opinion is why so many revere the songs of Townes Van Zandt. It’s why my favorite songwriter is Joseph Huber. The real talent is writing something in a clever way that is still heartfelt and catchy. Seems like when a song is written by someone living in some city gets shopped around town to be sold to people living in the sticks – most times any “heart” it ever had gets lost.
November 18, 2014 @ 10:08 pm
Some rock is deeply metaphorical, just like much of country is rich in storytelling and poetry. Most rock, however, is pretty repetitive.
Of course, rock involves a much broader set of themes than country. To some extent, rock lyrics are to country lyrics what abstract art is to painting a person or a landscape. Anybody can put together a bunch of colors and call it “abstract art”. However, accurately capturing real life people and objects in a painting requires a higher level of rigor.
To me, the main appeal of rock lies in the mix of instruments, while the appeal of country chiefly lies in the lyrics and the vocals.
November 19, 2014 @ 7:24 am
“Most rock lyrics, particularly in hard rock, have always been very much free-form. Country music, on the other hand, has traditionally required storytelling and poetry, which automatically makes the lyrics more complex than free-form.”
exactly the opposite is true, Eric. do you know how many pitches are in the melody of “I’m So Lonesome?” F-Sharp, D, A, and G, with the top and bottom notes being an A. there are four pitches in that song. this is far less complex than just about any competitor, as to your assertion that “story-telling” or “Coherence” automatically makes the lyrics more complex, let’s talk instrumentals, Bluegrass is pretty coherent, with the solos each being tethered by a musical theme, Jazz, by comparison, is “free-form” with the soloist required to have not only the chord progressions for each song memorized, but the notes required to play in each chord, (and these Jazz chords are more complicated that Bluegrass chords, I play in a ‘grass band with a former jazz player) any seasoned musicologist worth their salt will attest that Jazz is far more complicated, musically speaking, than Bluegrass, coherence notwithstanding, just because it is “coherent” or “tells a story” is not an indicator of complexity
November 19, 2014 @ 2:19 pm
That’s why I was specifically mentioning lyrics, not melody or instrumentals.
November 18, 2014 @ 5:25 am
Interesting how Dave Grohl, who charges hundreds of dollars per seat, can make such a pompous statement.
November 18, 2014 @ 9:05 am
Grohl doesn’t charge hundreds of dollars for his tickets. There is a plethora of things wrong with that statement.
November 18, 2014 @ 10:47 am
I find Foo Fighter tix very reasonable …. in the $50-$65 range (including surcharges). They have played some “events” which were not that norm and much more expensive. With that said, Garth has always tried to keep his tix price very reasonable.
November 19, 2014 @ 10:09 am
Really? Around here I could find nothing less than $185, plus fees and taxes.
November 18, 2014 @ 7:06 pm
Also, I think it’s probably easier for Grohl to tour than it would be for an upstart band. It takes money to make money.
November 17, 2014 @ 9:22 pm
As has been said before, superstars like Garth or T-Swift can perhaps benefit from challenging major media formats like Spotify or YouTube. But the vast majority of artists cannot and indeed benefit from these formats, for the sake of exposure in a vast market.
There are innumerable music artists that I now love, who I first learned about through online social media: Lindi Ortega, Holly Williams, Whiskey Myers, Luke Winslow, and Mandolin Orange to name a few. Most of these I saw in concert this year, and in the case of Holly Williams I bought all three of her albums!
Do we really want to return to the days when a handful of record labels and radio stations held all of the cards? Those days were enormously beneficial to Garth, but he should realize that those artists today who want to follow in his steps are far more likely to build a fan base through YouTube and Spotify than through traditional album sales…especially if they are actually doing country music.
November 17, 2014 @ 9:24 pm
Funny how people will celebrate guys like Waylon and Willie for going against the trends of their time and doing things their way, but criticize Garth for doing it 40 years later as if he’s not allowed to want to make money.
He should make all he can. People aren’t buying albums because they say Capitol, Mercury, RCA or Big Machine. They buy them because of who the singer is and indirectly who the writers and musicians are. Garth has made himself a hell of a lot of money, but he’s also made some nice money for a lot of very talented people who aren’t household names.
November 18, 2014 @ 7:08 am
excellent point Andrew
November 18, 2014 @ 12:07 pm
I don’t really see the similarity. Willie, Waylon, and their contemporaries were fighting for creative control of their music. They wanted to record the songs they wanted to record the way they wanted to record them in an era when those decisions were made by executives.
Garth’s issue is with marketing, not music. And nobody is telling him what he has to do, he’s just choosing what avenues he wants to use to market his music. Totally up to him, but if he really cares about the fans why does he want to pull his music from some of the places people in this day and age prefer to listen?
November 17, 2014 @ 10:47 pm
I find it odd that people criticize Brooks for being vigilant to protect his intellectual property. Why should he and other artists simply do nothing while others profit from his work? As a published author, I’d be incensed if I found my book being freely traded on the internet. I know it’s old fashioned, but I believe you should pay for your media.
November 18, 2014 @ 12:14 am
I’ve never been a fan of Garth’s music and sideshow, but I’m all for him and Taylor, and whoever else on this. I have absolutely no reason to support ANY tech people whose only knowledge of music is how much money they can squeeze out of it.
At least in the old days, the people doing the screwing of musicians got into the business ORIGINALLY because they loved music and musicians – they went dirty later. All of these tech dudes couldn’t give a fuck about music. It’s all 1s, 0s, and $s to them. They have to keep a copy of “Music for Dummies” on hand just to be able to write their stupid press releases on the subject.
I’ll support ANY musician over ANY tech dude ANY day.
I just hope FGL doesn’t jump on this, because I’d hate to have to support them on anything…
November 18, 2014 @ 7:11 am
Bingo Sam, that’s exactly right. I’ve seen some artists go out and the sound guys, or as you would say “tech dudes” are constantly screwing with stuff and it messes the poor singer up. I always take my own amps and equipment, only use sound guys I can trust if I have to use a sound guy, do my own sound check if I can. These headphone jockeys are a pain in the you-know-what most of the time
November 18, 2014 @ 10:17 am
That’s like saying, “truck drivers are great, but civil engineers and workers that designed and built the highways don’t deserve a damn thing.”
Content is valuable, but infrastructure is necessary. The current infrastrure for music is the internet, and services like YouTube and Spotify. If Garth and Taylor don’t want to use those avenues, that’s fine. It forces customers to work harder and pay more to get the content, but that’s fine for them.
Most artists don’t have that luxury.
November 18, 2014 @ 1:28 pm
You forgot to include Spotify or Youtube somewhere in your analogy. They don’t run the internet or any of its infrastructure.
If you really wanted to use a truck analogy, you would have to throw in some guy deciding that the truck driver would only get paid for every 4th run, while selling billboard space on the side of your truck to make themselves money on the free runs.
November 19, 2014 @ 7:29 am
You’re missing the point Jared. The logic that truck drivers are dependent on the road crews, and deserve less money than the road crews, and deserve to be hindered by road crews who think that they can tinker with the roads freely, is foolish at best. what happens to our truck drivers who are making a run, when the crews just decide “I know better” and put in a traffic circle that’s too tight for the truck driver to take? the road crews who build the infrastructure need to build it to the standards of the drivers, and in the same way do the people who create the infrastructure for our music distribution need to build it to meet the standards of the artist, not expect the artist to concede.
November 19, 2014 @ 7:39 am
That’s bull. Services like Spotify and YouTube are providing an avenue for artists and labels to get their product out there. If individual artists and labels don’t want to use those avenues, or they can’t come to a revenue agreement, they don’t have to. But the people who have created YouTube and Spotify aren’t holding anyone hostage, they aren’t stealing from artists, they are providing services. Services that consumers happen to appreciate.
You act like Spotify and YouTube are evil just because they are trying to make money from the distribution of music rather than making music. That’s just wrong and shortsighted. Distribution is important.
November 19, 2014 @ 9:08 am
Again, you missed the point, and this time you put words in my mouth while you were at it. I never said Spotify and Youtube were evil. It is true what you said, they have created an avenue for artists to make their material available, but they have not done it to the needs of the artists. That’s akin to saying that “I built you a computer for work, therefore I have done you a favor and you must thank me” but ignoring the fact that the computer that was built has none of the required programs, none of the necessary hardware specifications, and essentially is useless in my career. I’m all for artists getting venues for distribution, but it has to be done to the artists needs, and Spotify and Youtube aren’t cutting it.
November 18, 2014 @ 5:35 am
the devil created youtube?
Please tell me Garth Brooks doesn’t think that.
November 18, 2014 @ 7:45 am
“Trust me, songwriters are hurting”
Garth, to clarify your statement, songwriters who suck and should give it up and get a job in retail are hurting, and those who focus on writing songs that don’t appeal to a mainstream audience may be hurting. A 2011 survey by the Future of Music Coalition found that singer-songwriters in the U.S. reported making an average annual income of $34,455; this is a little above the overall medina income, so I would argue that even average songwriters aren’t hurting any more than anyone else.
But the songwriters you rub elbows with, the ones whose songs make your multi-platinum selling albums, are doing just fine. If the new album sells just half as many units as Fresh Horses, a writer with just 1/3 of a writing credit on just one song will make $90,000 from physical album sales alone without taking single sales, downloads, radio airplay, etc. into consideration. And that’s if the album does very poorly by your standards.
Now, Garth, I realize that because you have made more money that your grandchildren’s children will ever spend, you might be a little out of touch with reality, so let me help you out with what that really means. The median income in the United States for all people over age 25 is a tad over $32,000 a year. So the average American would have to work almost three years to make what the writer in the scenario above makes for HELPING to write ONE song. So please forgive us if we have a hard time swallowing the idea that it’s really a big deal whether this dude makes $40 or $4,000 for having his material played on YouTube or Spotify.
And, Garth, here’s the downside to what you want to do. Many, many young artists who are struggling to be heard are using this newfangled, Beelzebub-created technology to get a start in this business because the traditional channels are dominated by a few major players like yourself. Having the bigger names’ music on these streaming services will help attract listeners who might then be exposed to these indie artists, which could in turn lead to more album sales for them and – get this – more songwriting royalties for the people who actually need them! By withholding your music, you are lessening the chances that a newcomer will be able to make even a passable living in the music business.
But, to each his own. You do what you think is right. You always do.
November 18, 2014 @ 11:52 am
Wow you are a moron. First off garth will never see your comment. Garth is awesome and I’m glad he is taking a stand. You obviously have nothing better to do that criticize garth.
November 18, 2014 @ 12:09 pm
I’m not enough of a moron to think that Garth will actually see my comment. I am also not enough of a moron to be anyone’s fanboy.
November 18, 2014 @ 8:20 am
I think Trigger made the best point. Maybe it’s time for country song writers to start playing their own songs, and get away from the publishing companies. Nothing wrong with trading and selling songs, but the best country music being made today, is being created by people like Turnpike Troubadours, Reckless Kelly, Will Hoge, Stoney, Larue, & Adam Hood, etc. All performers who also write their own songs for the most part. As much as I like Garth Brooks, he’s no better than some guy playing Tom Petty, and David Allan Coe cover songs in a bar on Saturday nights.
November 18, 2014 @ 8:52 am
I’m 25, so I was basically too young to listen to music when Garth was popular. I had no issue whatsoever with the guy up until about a year ago when he started to try and force his way back into relevance. Every time he opens his mouth, I like him less and less. He’s really not that impressive. He’s got a number of great songs, and a number of really popular songs that are astoundingly regular.
He seems like the most pompous, self-important, ass in entertainment. How many hours did his marketing team spend photoshopiping his album pictures? He doesn’t even look like Garth Brooks. He acts like his music is a stroke of genius and anyone who is lucky enough to have it grace their ears should send him their life savings. I completely understand his stance on wanting to get paid for his music, but he’s also gotta adapt, and stop whining. He’s not saving the world one song at a time.
November 18, 2014 @ 12:16 pm
I was one of the many who was a huge fan he came out, became an even bigger fan over the course of his next couple of albums, then gradually lost interest until I got to the point where I couldn’t stand him and was relieved when he announced his retirement. Time heals wounds, and eventually I lost sight of what I didn’t like about him; I remembered a few specific incidents that I didn’t like – the guitar smashing, the stance against used CD sales, and Chris Gaines, just to name a few – but couldn’t put my finger on what had raised my hackles so much in the past and started to look forward to his new release.
But some of the things I’ve seen just in the last week have reminded me of what a self-absorbed egomaniac he had become by the time he retired.
November 18, 2014 @ 8:52 am
As much respect as I have for Garth Brooks, all of this chatter is very similar to when he refused to sell his CDs at Walmart because it hurt the record stores in the 90’s. Now his CDs are available exclusively at Walmart. So, I have to take his “charge” with a grain of salt.
Dave the Webmaster
November 18, 2014 @ 10:00 am
This is all such B.S. If Garth is really bothered about his songwriters not making enough money, then why doesn’t HE pay them? How many songwriters per album are there? 10 at most? Why is it that there has to be some system that forces them to get paid? What’s preventing GARTH (or any other multi-millionaire “artist”) from paying them out of *whatever* revenue stream he chooses?
Bigfoot is Real (naked and afraid)
November 18, 2014 @ 10:31 am
The songwriters have been paid or will be based on product that has been sold such as all the CDs out to retailers and downloads processed. Youtube and other free services are another matter though and I agree those need to be addressed fairly for artists and contributors.
Having said that, Garth could throw them a freakin’ bone here and there and maybe cut back on the Japanese made guitars he plays and promotes that put American luthiers out of work. He is still and always will be a phony convenient American.
Dave the Webmaster
November 18, 2014 @ 11:19 am
That’s exactly what I mean. If Garth is so bothered by his songwriters’ compensation, then why doesn’t Garth throw some more money at them? We all know he could afford it.
November 18, 2014 @ 11:38 am
If he really thinks the songwriters are getting screwed, he’s got the resources to simply buy the songs for what he thinks they’re worth. It used to be a common practice back when there really wasn’t much money is writing songs.
But anyone who really thinks that songwriting royalties is what this is all about is just kidding himself. His goal is to surpass the Beatles for most units sold, and he’s against anything that might cost him one album sale whether it be iTunes, streaming sites, or used CD sales.
Think about this: While I get that some of these sites might not pay enough – and I don’t know who decides how much is “enough” – they do pay something. Last I checked, something was better than nothing; so if these songwriters are really struggling does it really make sense to pull the music and completely cut off that income stream?
November 18, 2014 @ 1:15 pm
This is not about his songwriters. His songwriters will be paid more than enough due to album sales.
The idea behind Garth’s and Taylor’s actions is the concept of the boycott. They think that by depriving streaming services of a significant chunk of profit, they can force the services to raise the payout for all songwriters.
November 18, 2014 @ 4:04 pm
But are these songwriters somehow owed a good living just because they choose to be songwriters? If their material is really that good, won’t someone with star power come along and put their songs on albums that will sell well enough for the writers to earn a living?
Has anyone mentioned that Spotify currently pays out 70% of it’s gross revenues? I don’t know what their other operating expenses amount to, but this seems like a pretty significant percentage. If it works out to a teensy little amount of money per play, it really just means that each song is getting played a crapton of times. I’m not saying that there’s not an issue here at all, but I’m not going to take Garth’s word for it.
Even if his motives are pure, I think this move will work against the struggling, little-known songwriters he claims to be sticking up for.
November 18, 2014 @ 10:47 am
Just re-retire already.
November 18, 2014 @ 3:10 pm
He’s greedy. He keeps coming back for more money. He’s the Brett Favre of country music…
November 18, 2014 @ 12:14 pm
If I was talented enough to put out an album and I thought the 10-12 songs on it should sell for $12, but the outlet (itunes) wanted to make each song available for 99 cents, should I have to cave and let them? Garth’s under lying goal may be to make a billion dollars but he is not just talking the talk, he has Ghost tunes for what its worth, and from what i’ve read it allows for much more freedom in how things get distributed. He may not be winning the fight but I think he is the biggest name that is really putting his neck out their for artist and for music.
November 18, 2014 @ 12:39 pm
The issue here is what songwriters are paid. Songwriters are paid the same for downloads as from the sale of a physical unit.
For example, Adam Wright has one song on Man Against Machine. So for each album sold he will get $.091. If it’s released as a single on CD – do they even do that anymore? – or winds up on a compilation album, he will also get $.091 for each of those sales. And if it were available for download on iTunes, he would get $.091 as well for each download. So there’s no difference whatsoever to the writer how the music is released for sale as it all pays the same.
What Garth is talking about here is streaming music, which should be compared to radio airplay rather than sales.
November 18, 2014 @ 3:08 pm
Garth Brooks is an absolute idiot. I have never bought any of his albums or songs, and after more interviews displaying his disgustingly overbearing sense of greed, I will surely not buy any of his music, ever. I have never seen an artist so arrogant, cocky, greedy, and self-righteous as Brooks. I don’t know why people are so stupid and still buy this greedy a$$hole’s music. I would never support an artist who is only in music for the money. You can tell he doesn’t care about country music or what he does, he just does it for the green he gets in his hand every day. Brooks is one of those idiots that lives in the past and cannot accept change, he needs to get out of the 90’s and get with the times. Little does the fool realize but music being on youtube and on itunes is a GOOD thing for an artist, it makes them get a bigger audience and thus sends many people over to sites like itunes to buy the music they just heard. Brooks will go to his grave being the arrogant dick he is, he could be making more money than he is if he’d let his music on youtube and itunes. Never giving this man a dime from my wallet.
November 19, 2014 @ 7:35 am
Summer Jam, you’ve overlooked an integral part of how this works. When a person buys a physical Cd, the truckers who delivered it get paid, the manufacturers who made the case and the booklet get paid, the retailer who sells it gets paid, and a whole bunch of other often overlooked people involved in the production of a physical unit get paid, I.E. the guy who delivers the ink that gets printed on the booklet, and the guy who repairs the printer that prints the booklet. These people make nothing when music is downloaded, streamed, or otherwise obtained electronically. This isn’t about just the artists, it’s about the flow of money, and by fighting the “machine” Garth has lined the pockets of all the “little people” whose menial day to day jobs have factored into putting his physical albums like the new one at Wal-Mart on the shelves
November 19, 2014 @ 9:27 am
Fuzzy TwoShirts, you’re overlooking the integral fact that Garth is also bypassing all those common working-class folks by releasing his music through his GhostTunes service. If his concern was really with whether truck drivers and retail employees benefit from each and every one of his releases he wouldn’t put his music online, period.
November 19, 2014 @ 9:33 am
But Garth owns GhostTunes, he controls it. he may not personally care about the truck drivers, I don’t recall saying he did, Garth’s benefit from GhostTunes is control. His establishment can set the prices and the payouts from GhostTunes to his employees and songwriters, and therefore he now has control over his little corner of the industry that he couldn’t have with Spotify
November 19, 2014 @ 9:53 am
No, I guess you didn’t say “truck drivers”, you specifically mention the guy who delivers ink which might bean a truck driver or it might mean a guy from Office Max driving a minivan depending on how much in the folks who print the booklet buy at a time.
Regardless, you first said Garth is fighting the machine to help line the pockets of the little people involved in the manufacture of a physical CD and have now changed your argument to say that it’s all about Garth having control, so I’m not really sure where you stand.
November 19, 2014 @ 11:06 am
Yeah I guess I set myself up there
Tom: It’s true that I said Garth is fighting the machine, but don’t think that I honestly believe he cares about truck drivers or the people in “menial” jobs. I said he was fighting the machine, because he is, and “lining the pockets” of the “normal” people is just a consequence. I don’t believe he cares about truck drivers, that’s just a side note. I do believe that Garth wants to decide how much money he gets for digital music and Garth wants to decide how much each person gets out of every song, it’s all about control
November 19, 2014 @ 1:07 pm
After re-reading your post with that in mind I see where you’re coming from. And I agree that it’s all about control with Garth.
But I don’t really think he’s fighting THE machine; I think he’s just picked sides in a fight between one machine and another.
November 18, 2014 @ 5:59 pm
A good article on the streaming debate is here:
towards the bottom, Rosanne Cash weighs in.
We need to find a way to protect the creators.
November 19, 2014 @ 9:47 am
I looked up Rosanne’s discography. It appears that her most current album, which is available on Spotify, has performed better than any of her last albums which were released pre-Spotify. I have to wonder if she’s considered that, while she’s being paid relatively little for her Spotify plays, that the exposure might be helping her album sales?
Here’s a line from the article citing stats that seem to refute the idea that Spotify is responsible for killing sales:
>>Swift”™s impressive first-week sales of “1989,” which were just under 1.3 million albums, making her the year”™s top seller, are still well short of the all-time first-week high, 2.4 million, set by ”™N Sync, in 2000. And the sixty-nine-per-cent drop-off in “1989” ”™s second-week sales suggests that Swift”™s seventy-one million Facebook fans didn”™t rush out and buy the album when they couldn”™t get it on Spotify. They just streamed whatever was available on YouTube, which pays artists even less than Spotify does, or on other sites. Or they set sail for the Pirate Bay, where the album was also No. 1.<<
November 19, 2014 @ 6:44 am
Could someone please translate this for me: “Thanks for our wonderful someone judging on this one on the government. ” WTF?
November 19, 2014 @ 7:05 am
Translation: I’m not getting my way so I’m going to blame everyone I can.
November 19, 2014 @ 3:43 pm
According to Billboard, Soundscan has yet to receive Garth Brooks’s numbers from Ghost Tunes.
Quotable Country – 11/24/14 Edition | Country California
November 24, 2014 @ 11:20 am
[…] I got the first question, “How do you get out?” And silence. You don”™t. You don”™t get out. â— — Garth Brooks on attempting to opt out of ever being on […]
December 29, 2014 @ 6:47 pm
Leave it to Trigg to give me a good laugh