The Big Drive Open Thread...
From the original Analog Industries archive. Some links and images from that era no longer resolve.
Okay, the Nitro and I are heading to San Francisco tomorrow for AES. Assuming there are no snowstorms, I’ll be driving all day tomorrow, so no posting. I’ll post some thoughts and pictures from AES when I get back to my hotel, and I’ll update my Twitter feed throughout the day, so if you’re intensely curious, watch that.
Anyhow, until that lofty event occurs, you’re on your own. The subject of discussion this time is this article. In a nutshell, if you don’t feel like reading it, record labels (well, Bronfman anyhow) think that Activision should pay them more because of the success of Guitar Hero et al. Activision says “bah. If anything, you should pay us, bitches. Look at how many copies of Joan Jett’s Greatest Hits you’ve sold because of us!” What we have here is a symbiotic relationship. I mean, if Guitar Hero just had random indie rock tracks (which are the kind of tracks you can get for free) then it wouldn’t had sold as well as it has, and neither would back catalog move.
When it comes to music in movies, background music in games, commercials, department stores, etc. I’m firmly of the opinion that the licensee should pay through the nose, repeatedly and with vigor. Music helps move those products. However, a situation like Guitar Hero is a special case, where the success does in fact equal income for the label. But the author of the article correctly points out that if the labels have to pay to get songs in the game, they’re going to just give the game authors a bunch of bullshit they want promo for, rather than what the game authors envisioned, which is apparently of the “I Love Rock ‘n’ Roll” variety.
Thoughts?
10 comments
The media is an ugly industry, music biz is suffering while gaming is comparatively safe for the moment. Hence gaming are doing everything they can to bleed music dry. This reminds me of Kanye West claiming that magazines should pay to have him on their front cover. They probably do, if not in cash then in reputation, but nevertheless its an example of how the music industry has played hardball with the rest of the media for a certain phase, and now finds itself on the receiving end. Sooner or later, I believe, the opposite will be true. Of course this reeks of Payola, and perhaps the most interesting aspect of it is that this information is in the public domain and no one is scandalized. Perhaps it's a sign that we now accept competition in business of an unscrupulous nature.
Bands release their own movies, why not games?
It seems to be a sign that the music industry is being run by even less mature and thoughtful peoples than it has been in the past (yeah I'm incredulous too...).
It's my opinion (and it seems to apply in other industries) that you sit down and strike a deal, you sign and then you live with the success or failure.... so it's all in the way you structure your deal, if you're dumb (hello music bus. executives, I'm talking about you) you don't account for all the options going in and you leave something on the table - your bad. I guess fleecing 17-year-old wanna-be pop stars is no training ground for negotiating a deal with (say) EA...who'd-a-guessed-it?
But I figure "grow the fuck up" isn't gonna cut it with the music industry tho is it...
Wow. Could this issue be any more "last year"?
Guitar Hero 3 and Rock Band 1 were both huge releases of the 2007 holiday season. At that time, yeah, all payment went from the direction of the game developer to the music rights holder. In the year that has passed, it is pretty obvious that a couple of other payment models have been played with resulting in some interesting down-loadable content releases. We saw a Dropkick Murphys track pack released for free for GH3 the week before their latest album came out, for example. Did Activision pay the label for the privilege to advertise for the label? I'm not privy to the exact details, but I'd bet good money that Activision isn't that dumb.
On the Rock Band side, we have seen many occasions where DLC tracks have been released for free or at reduced price, conveniently timed with some related event. Cruefest band tracks for cheap/free at the start of Cruefest? Yeah, I'm sure that wasn't advertising revenue at work. :)
This is a very simple case of the media finally catching on to a story well after it is no longer story worthy. It's like if Jon Stewart finally got around to bad-mouthing Bush late in 2009.
I don't know about "finally catching up," frankly. Bronfman made his comments last month. It's not like there's a huge lag there. And the Activision products come out in a pretty steady stream.
-CR
Let me rephrase then. Money flows in the direction of value. Game devs pay for big songs that they want in the games to attract initial buyers, music labels pay for songs that they want promo'd to said buyers. The system is already in place, it already works. Mr. Wired's article reeks of someone that doesn't follow the topic at hand, and therefore wrote a poorly thought out piece. His argument seems to be "Yeah, game devs should pay all the monies!" completely oblivious to the fact that that ship has already sailed.
Sure, some dude at Warner wants more money. That's his job. And sure, Activision has the attitude of "Fuck Warner. Why do we need them?". Which also makes perfect sense, as there is plenty of well-known music to go around, push come to shove.
"Game developers and record labels have struck a balance that currently seems to be working well for both sides, which is probably why they're so desperate to mess with it. "
I think this quote sums up the entire issue for me. Fuck 'em both.
Well, when it comes to the music industry/money equation, I always think of this Ani DiFranco quote: "a record of an event - the event of people making music in a room." If you aren't making music for the love of music, and getting people to dance (or chill, or whatever) then get out of the way. (in my opinion)
As far as this particular issue, it seems like both parties benefit from the inclusion of classic music in these games. It seems like since both parties benefit, they should work out a mutually beneficial deal. However, since we are talking about corporate entities, I'm sure they will fight bloodily over whatever scraps exist. I wonder how the ARTISTS fare in this? Probably only slightly worse than in every other dealing with labels.
I'd like to the relationship between music and video games move towards how Primal (PS2 exclusive title) and 16Volt collaborated. I know nothing about either industry beyond the surface, but it seemed to be a very symbiotic relationship, that gave a lot of exposure to both parties. The problem with these arrangements could be that, if not booked well, a musician selected for a game may drive people away from playing the game and vice versa.
Well, they're both industries with histories of screwing the people who make the actual content, so they have that common ground.
Comments are closed on this post.