Open Letter From OK Go, regarding non-embeddable YouTube videos Options

[jorge]

To the people of the world, from OK Go:

This week we released a new album, and it’s our best yet. We also released a new video – the second for this record – for a song called This Too Shall Pass, and you can watch it here. We hope you'll like it and comment on it and pass the link along to your friends and do that wonderful thing that that you do when you’re fond of something, share it. We want you to stick it on your web page, post it on your wall, and embed it everywhere you can think of.

Unfortunately, as of now you can’t embed diddlycrap. And depending on where you are in the world, you might not even be able to watch it.

We’ve been flooded with complaints recently because our YouTube videos can't be embedded on websites, and in certain countries can't be seen at all. And we want you to know: we hear you, and we’re sorry. We wish there was something we could do. Believe us, we want you to pass our videos around more than you do, but, crazy as it may seem, it’s now far harder for bands to make videos accessible online than it was four years ago.

See, here’s the deal. The recordings and the videos we make are owned by a record label, EMI. The label fronts the money for us to make recordings – for this album they paid for us to spend a few months with one of the world’s best producers in a converted barn in Amish country wringing our souls and playing tympani and twiddling knobs – and they put up most of the cash that it takes to distribute and promote our albums, including the costs of pressing CDs, advertising, and making videos. We make our videos ourselves, and we keep them dirt cheap, but still, it all adds up, and it adds up to a great deal more than we have in our bank account, which is why we have a record label in the first place.

Fifteen years ago, when the terms of contracts like ours were dreamt up, a major label could record two cats fighting in a bag and three months later they'd have a hit. No more. People of the world, there has been a revolution. You no longer give a shit what major labels want you to listen to (good job, world!), and you no longer spend money actually buying the music you listen to (perhaps not so good job, world). So the money that used to flow through the music business has slowed to a trickle, and every label, large or small, is scrambling to catch every last drop. You can't blame them; they need new shoes, just like everybody else. And musicians need them to survive so we can use them as banks. Even bands like us who do most of our own promotion still need them to write checks every once in a while.

But where are they gonna find money if no one buys music? One target is radio stations (there's lots of articles out there. here's one: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/20...ouse-senate.ars ). And another is our friend The Internutz. As you’ve no doubt noticed, sites like YouTube, MySpace, and Blahzayblahblah.cn run ads on copyrighted content. Back when Young MC's second album (the one that didn't have Bust A Move on it) could go Gold without a second thought, labels would’ve considered these sites primarily promotional partners like they did with MTV, but times have changed. The labels are hurting and they need every penny they can find, so they’ve demanded a piece of the action. They got all huffy a couple years ago and threatened all sorts of legal terror and eventually all four majors struck deals with YouTube which pay them tiny, tiny sums of money every time one of their videos gets played. Seems like a fair enough solution, right? YouTube gets to keep the content, and the labels get some income.

The catch: the software that pays out those tiny sums doesn’t pay if a video is embedded. This means our label doesn’t get their hard-won share of the pie if our video is played on your blog, so (surprise, surprise) they won’t let us be on your blog. And, voilá: four years after we posted our first homemade videos to YouTube and they spread across the globe faster than swine flu, making our bassist’s glasses recognizable to 70-year-olds in Wichita and 5-year-olds in Seoul and eventually turning a tidy little profit for EMI, we’re – unbelievably – stuck in the position of arguing with our own label about the merits of having our videos be easily shared. It’s like the world has gone backwards.

Let’s take a wider view for a second. What we’re really talking about here is the shift in the way we think about music. We’re stuck between two worlds: the world of ten years ago, where music was privately owned in discreet little chunks (CDs), and a new one that seems to be emerging, where music is universally publicly accessible. The thing is, only one of these worlds has a (somewhat) stable system in place for funding music and all of its associated nuts-and-bolts logistics, and, even if it were possible, none of us would willingly return to that world. Aside from the smug assholes who ran labels, who’d want a system where a handful of corporate overlords shove crap down our throats? All the same, if music is going to be more than a hobby, someone, literally, has to pay the piper. So we’ve got this ridiculous situation where the machinery of the old system is frantically trying to contort and reshape and rewire itself to run without actually selling music. It’s like a car trying to figure out how to run without gas, or a fish trying to learn to breath air.

So what’s there to do? On the macro level, well, who the hell knows? There are a lot of interesting ideas out there, but this is not the place to get into them. As for our specific roadblock with the video embedding, the obvious solution is for YouTube to work out its software so it allow labels to monetize their videos, wherever on the Internet or the globe they're being accessed. That'll surely happen before too long because there's plenty of money to be made, but it’s more complicated than it looks at first glance. Advertisers aren’t too keen on paying for ads when they don’t know where the ads will appear (“Dear users of FoxxxyPregnantMILFS.com, try Gerber’s new low-lactose formula!”), so there are a lot of hurdles to get over.

In the meantime, the only thing OK Go can do is to upload our videos to sites that allow for embedding, like MySpace and Vimeo. We do that already, but it stings a little. Not only does it cannibalize our own numbers (it tends to do our business more good to get 40 million hits on one site than 1 million hits on 40 sites), but, as you can imagine, we feel a lot of allegiance to the fine people at YouTube. They’ve been good to us, and what they want is what we want: lots of people to see our videos. When push comes to shove, however, we like our fans more, which is why you can take the code at the bottom of this email and embed the "This Too Shall Pass" video all over the Internet.

With or without this embedding problem, we'll never get 50 zillion views on a YouTube video again. That moment – the dawn of internet video – is gone. The internet isn’t as anarchic as it was then. Now there are Madison Avenue firms that specialize in “viral marketing” and the success of our videos is now taught in business school. But here's a secret: zillions of hits was never the point. We're a rock band, and it’s a great gig. Not just because we get to snort drugs off the Queen of England (we do), but because the only thing we are expected to do is make cool stuff. We chase our craziest ideas for a living, and if sharing those ideas takes 40 websites instead of one, it doesn’t make too big a difference to us.

So, for now, here's the bottom line: EMI won't let us let you embed our YouTube videos. It's a decision that bums us out. We've argued with them a lot about it, but we also understand why they're doing it. They’re aware that their rules make it harder for people to watch and share our videos, but, while our duty is to our music and our fans, theirs is to their shareholders, and they believe they’re doing the right thing.

Here’s the embed code for the Vimeo posting:
<object width="400" height="300"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8718627&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=1&amp;show_byline=1&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=&amp;fullscreen=1" /><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8718627&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=1&amp;show_byline=1&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=&amp;fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="300"></embed></object><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/8718627">OK Go - This Too Shall Pass</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user2495615">OK Go</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

Go forth and put it everywhere, please. And buy our album. It’s great.

Yours Truly,

Damian (on behalf of OK Go)

[Head Full of Cra...]

that was an amazing read, and i really understand the situation a lot better now!

[Tapegrl =D]

I hope the world listens to your powerful writing, Damian, because this stuff is really hard to swallow.

[levity]

Thanks for the great rundown of the whole situation!

Advertisers aren’t too keen on paying for ads when they don’t know where the ads will appear (“Dear users of FoxxxyPregnantMILFS.com, try Gerber’s new low-lactose formula!”), so there are a lot of hurdles to get over.

Hopefully it won't be long before advertisers start realizing that unexpected ad placements could be a benefit -- in fact, if, say, Google's AdSense and Analytics products had some kind of love child, they could make a service to connect brands with fans and potential customers in places on the Internet they never would have thought of looking. Who knows; it might even be more effective than traditional advertising (which is dying off anyway, like the old music industry).

This post has been edited by levity: Jan 18 2010, 10:52 PM

[MikeDog70]

When people preface a question with "this is a stupid question" someone will usually respond with "there are no stupid questions", so I am hoping for that type of response, because I have a stupid question.

I LOVE the This Too Shall Pass video. It's creative, fun, entertaining, a great song...everything about it oozes awesomeness. I shared it by copying and pasting the link from YouTube and placing it on my FB page. Should I not have done this? I'll take it down immediately if so, and will gladly link it the "right" way. I saw it written on the responses on FB to this letter that someone said they liked the video so much they went and bought the album. Well, so did I. And, being a high school music teacher, hopefully encouraged plenty of more people (students, colleagues) to become fans of OK Go.

This is more from just not knowing what "embedding" really is. Man, am I really that old? When did this happen?? My parents were supposed to be the ones who don't understand the internet...

All I want to do is what is right for artists, and in this case, for OK Go. Keep up the great work, guys! Without a doubt some of the most creative work I have had the privilege of hearing/seeing.

[Sunnyside1334]

I shared it by copying and pasting the link from YouTube and placing it on my FB page.

I added the link to my FB page and I emailed the link to all of my contacts. I also must admit that I did embed the video from vimeo on my MS page but I get zero visitors there so no harm done.

This post has been edited by Sunnyside1334: Jan 19 2010, 12:59 AM

[iMito]

I know Vevo has a deal with EMI. Have you guys looked at hosting your videos through that (it's embeddable and through YouTube)? Or are there additional issues there that I'm unaware of?

This post has been edited by iMito: Jan 19 2010, 12:57 AM

[agentnumone]

that makes way more sense now

Damian's such a great writer.

[bullshituous]

GOD DAMN, Damian! This album is GORGEOUS!

[charlesv]

Totally appreciate you guys taking the time to explain your position. One thing that I don't understand why youtube <i>doesn't</i> do, that you can do, is provide an image link to the youtube page for non-embeddable videos. Rather than break existing embeds (like your Here It Goes Again video), you can have a link as such:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJKythlXAIY" target=_blank>
<img src="http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/UJKythlXAIY/hqdefault.jpg">
</a>

You can just replace that string of random characters with your video ID, let people embed the link/image, and when people click on it, they get taken to the youtube page. Blogs can use the code to post a link easily, you guys/EMI get money, everybody (mostly) wins.

Keep fighting the good fight.

[Pinky Gonzales]

You guys should turn it around on them and embed your FANs videos. Have people film a statement of support and embed THOSE videos on YOUR site. It's the old switcheroo (word.)

Also, you might consider running a one-off Tshirt that says, "I embedded Ok Go" or the also fabulous, "Ok Go Embedded me." "Embedded by Ok Go." ?? You get the idea.

[agentnumone]

"Embedded by Ok Go."

This post has been edited by agentnumone: Jan 19 2010, 02:28 PM

[danofames]

This was interesting. Like others, I appreciate the time and effort to be clear and forthright with a matter concerning your band.

I also like the tone in your writing about the labels, which might be taken as sympathetic, not something often found in discussions about who has the rights to music and its distribution.

One point I'd be interested to hear a band's perspective on is the trade-offs in signing up with a label in the first place. However unreasonable labels are in how they're willing to distribute music, they were that when you signed on, and it would have been foolish to think they were not, or were going to change in the near future. You weren't that foolish, but figured that what you'd be able to do with a label was better in sum than what you could do without a label.

And one sacrifice you were obviously willing to make is control in how your music is distributed, or can be published, whatever we'll call that. If control or freedom in that area was valuable enough to you, you wouldn't have chosen to sign up for a label.

I'd love what you've said here, and I'd love it even more if you were explicit with your responsibility for the situation in that you signed up with the label in the first place, knowing fully that this situation could come about. I see that this is the closest I've seen a band do that, just in that you are making points that labels do benefit bands, and do need to make some money to continue to do that.

Even bands like us who do most of our own promotion still need them to write checks every once in a while.

"Need" is obviously contingent on your band wanting to achieve certain things, none of which are *necessary*. To achieve those things, you needed some money you didn't have, and decided to sacrifice some freedom with your music, in exchange for the advance money. One effect is that the embedding that had a lot to do with your earlier success is not possible, because you decided to enter an agreement with a label that had control over such things. If you hadn't, you could still release videos that can be embedded.

[jedi_grrlie]

I'd love what you've said here, and I'd love it even more if you were explicit with your responsibility for the situation in that you signed up with the label in the first place, knowing fully that this situation could come about. I see that this is the closest I've seen a band do that, just in that you are making points that labels do benefit bands, and do need to make some money to continue to do that.

"Need" is obviously contingent on your band wanting to achieve certain things, none of which are *necessary*. To achieve those things, you needed some money you didn't have, and decided to sacrifice some freedom with your music, in exchange for the advance money. One effect is that the embedding that had a lot to do with your earlier success is not possible, because you decided to enter an agreement with a label that had control over such things. If you hadn't, you could still release videos that can be embedded.

While I'm certainly not a member of the band and therefore can't say for certain, I think it's important to remember that the band signed to Capitol in 2001, and while there were certain sacrifices that obviously had to be made, control over the distribution of their videos on the Internet may not have been on the top of their list or the label's, considering YouTube, et al didn't really come into play until 2005 or 2006. That sort of thing was probably on the horizon, but maybe not the forefront of everyone's mind, and probably not something that was going to effect how a contract turned out.

Also, while I'm certainly not a proponent of the majors (Rachel can attest to that...), you make it sound like it's a bad thing that the band wanted to achieve a certain level of success and decided that signing to a major was the most effective way to get to that point. I mean, honestly, every band is different and you can make a living, or at least a good portion of your living, off music without being signed to a major, or any label, period, but it's certainly much more difficult. Let's face it, if your goal is to live off your music AND not get yourself on a label, you better be rich already or pretty damn effective at generating revenue. And you'd be hard pressed to find a band that wants to toil in obscurity, unless they've got some kind of backwards hipster fantasies.

It's probably also worth noting that for the video for "A Million Ways," and possibly also for "HIGA" (please correct me if I'm wrong), was made more or less without label permission, with a song that technically belonged to the label, and they full well could have been sued for it. Which I think would have been a stupid move on the label's part, but the point being they took a gamble and distributed the song regardless and it paid off. I don't think they've resigned themselves to sitting in a box, twiddling their thumbs and hoping for everything to resolve itself quite yet.

Anywho. I think the tone of this is more of "the system is messed up and needs to change," which it obviously does, rather than "man, we were such dumbasses for signing to a major that won't let us embed videos, we should have seen this coming." In sum, yes, obviously, the band had some level of responsibility in terms of what sacrifices it made for security, but the sacrifices a band makes in terms of control and distribution today may not have been exactly what they were in the early part of the last decade, and experience is one hell of a teacher.

That's my two cents, anyway. Damian, if you're around, feel free to correct me.

This post has been edited by jedi_grrlie: Jan 19 2010, 05:51 PM

[danofames]

sure, I'm not trying at all to say that it's a bad thing to go use a label to achieve the goals someone has as a band, or question the validity of those goals.

trying to boil it down, I feel like we've seen many bands end up distancing themselves from their label whenever the label approaches a situation like embedding "the old way", and the the band tries to respond to unhappy fans. or if the band isn't doing this themselves, the fans are trying to, while the aspect of the benefits the band receives from a label, and the trade-offs the band themselves made can be dismissed as "necessary".

this statement was easily the most reasonable of its kind I've seen, and one that didn't feel like was trying to put any distance between the band and the label. so I was encouraged and was interested to try to push the question a little further.

in fact, I hope this sort of communication proves to be an effective way to try to shape the industry to better accommodate things like YouTube. a tone that acknowledges that labels help out bands, and deserve to make some profits from doing so.

[DJRose]

The thing is that it's easy to say "did you really *need* to give up those controls over your music?" when 9 years ago the musical landscape was a drastically different place. 9 years ago, when they signed, the Major labels were pretty much the only way an artist could go and make a living making music. What I think you might be forgetting is that OK Go is responsible for the dawn of YouTube as a musical promotional tool. The labels didn't see it coming, and frankly neither did OK Go. So how can you say "did you really *need* to do such and such" when there was absolutely no way to predict the tides?

I guess what Jedi_grrrlie and I are left to wonder then, is what kind of answer are you looking for when you push the question? Damian's spelled it out pretty well; being a musician is effing expensive and if you want quality you gotta pay for quality, so sometimes you need a sugar daddy to write the checks. Independent artists can record, self-produce, and all that business for a fraction of the price (I know from personal experience), but they're not moving in with David Fridmann for a few months to record whatever comes to mind.

[agentnumone]

"Need" is obviously contingent on your band wanting to achieve certain things, none of which are *necessary*. To achieve those things, you needed some money you didn't have, and decided to sacrifice some freedom with your music, in exchange for the advance money. One effect is that the embedding that had a lot to do with your earlier success is not possible, because you decided to enter an agreement with a label that had control over such things. If you hadn't, you could still release videos that can be embedded.

Yeah they are trying to achieve certain things one being a successful album. what would the point of embeddable videos be if they didnt have great music made with/ distributed by/ etc the funds of thier label to promote with those videos?

[Rob]

Your label has serious issues understanding the internet. You guys aware that only folks living in the US or UK can visit emi.com [without using a proxy or other means to get around this]???

Message I get being in Canada:

EMI.com is currently only available in the UK and the US.
We are working on bringing the site to users around the world.

That message has been up for years [?] - or pretty close to it at this point if not correct. It is like someone was hired at EMI to remove all the benefits of the world wide web from their business operations.


And danofames I might take it a bit easier on the band depending on when they last signed or renewed their contract. It is entirely conceivable they signed that dealing limiting their means to distribute their music in ways they weren't even aware they were going to want to do so down the road.

I think these situations are examples of why various artists are leaving major deals now as new opportunities that benefit the artists are not aligned with the interests of labels [making money right NOW].

[edythemighty]

I know Vevo has a deal with EMI. Have you guys looked at hosting your videos through that (it's embeddable and through YouTube)? Or are there additional issues there that I'm unaware of?

I'd just like to point out that Calle 13, the Puerto Rican reggaeton artist, has some videos on Vevo which can NOT be accessed in Puerto Rico. (Though the definition of irony is debated, I'm sure that counts as a good example) Sadly, Vevo is just a place to browse videos, it's still subject to a lot of the same restrictions videos have elsewhere on Youtube.

Good luck to OK Go. Love you guys <3

[Anders from RedA...]

So, for now, here's the bottom line: EMI won't let us let you embed our YouTube videos.

I GOT THE SOLUTION FOR THIS. I GOT IT, I GOT IT......
This is exactly why we started the company RedAntenna.com last year. RedAntenna make EMBEDDABLE (viral) MiniShops with streaming Video, music and downloads. Fans can watch video, listen to songs and buy, pay and download directly from the embeded MiniShop- no matter where it is online.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEASE let us show you guys what we can... This exact problem is the reason why we started RedAntenna.com.

Best Anders Hjorth
FULL DISCLOSURE: My company works with this exact issue, so I have an interest in solving their problems with our Embeddable MiniShop. - but hell this is the problem we are trying to solve.

This post has been edited by Anders from RedAntenna: Jan 20 2010, 03:29 PM

[Irene]

Monetize the video? I thought the video was a marketing tool - to draw people to the music. It's like creating posters and then not allowing people to put them up on the streets. Creating a brochure, but only keeping it in the front lobby of your establishment. Making business cards but not handing them out - unless someone pays for it. What's the point?

Here's an idea. How about making a funny YouTube viral video that will drive traffic to the video on your mySpace site?

[f33dback]

First, let me start with “Thank God for the Internet”, for all the reasons it rocks.
Next let me say most of the young people today have no memory or concept of the history of buying music, I have watched this charade from the late 60’s and I am here to tell you a song isn’t worth more than 25 cents (USA) and in that regard iTunes is charging to much.
This isn’t meant as disrespect to OKGO, but it’s the truth, and I can remember a time when CD’s first came out and how expensive they were, how you had to wade thru 9 crappy songs to get to the one you wanted.
They (the greedy old men that run the music biz) told us prices would come down, they never really did.
Not until they (the greedy old men that run the music biz) watched the Internet yank away their distribution control, slowly their old business model collapsed around them, and instead of adapting they spent millions on lobbying new laws, taking 12 year old girls to court, and bankrupting others in a vain attempt to create a climate of fear.
They failed, they will always fail because they (the greedy old men that run the music biz) are fools.
iTunes shows you how easy it is to adapt, distribution has never been easier and never cost less.
But instead they whined about all the “billions we are losing” well a quick google search “music industry profits for 2008 - 2009” will show you how they lie, in fact times are good for these greedy old men, but they can’t rest on that, they continue to lobby our rights away.
A quick review of copy right laws and the changes they (the greedy old men that run the music biz) have manage will show how corrupt they are.
IMO it’s always been about the music, if you went into the biz to make a million then F you, for those that are honest about their music keep going it will work out in your favor.
I like OKGO’s music, I enjoyed your article, and I hope you keep going for a long time, please take a snort off the Queen mum for me (I’m to old for snorting crap any more) and for the younger folks take a peek at history and how they (the greedy old men that run the music biz) have F’ed their way thru people’s lives, screwed over musicians and sold you complete crap (B. Spears anyone?) and never forget what they are.
Greedy Old Men.

[eigenstates]

FWIW- I work in the internet video world. There is no technical barrier which would prevent 'the software' from tracking activity on any site. In fact, if the video hosting company is doing it right (and we'll assume this is YouTube we are talking about so, they are), they have the ability to tack which sites, how long you spent watching it, and if you are logged in to your account on that host- to be able to attribute that play to your account. Further, the initial data the player has, the video being played, the site, the time of day, and your user account info -can(is?) be processed in to an 'object' that is used to target ads at the viewer.

So for EMI to say that there should be no embedding suggests one of a few things about the legal department (who actually are the ones ultimately driving the decisions behind the no embed rule)- they are terminally backward and stupid... or... there is a distinct lack of precedent about this stuff for them to make contracts... or... maybe a bit of both with a smidge of laziness tossed in. Whatever.

The point here is that we do need to evolve this distribution problem. Standards for presentation help this sort of thing. But there are, as I mentioned, a large number of tech advances that have been made regarding tracking stuff as it moves around the web. Maybe the if the techies and lawyers can stop yelling at each other for a while?

Best luck. Love the video- and the song! Nice orchestration.

Upon a nice walk in the rain I came to the realization that, in fact, a single point of distribution is about the ONLY way to ensure all parties get correct viewing statistics as well as any revenue generated. Again this is completely technically possible right now.

This post has been edited by eigenstates: Jan 20 2010, 11:52 PM

[Cornelius]

It was 1989 when Ani DiFranco, knowing she did not want to play the corporate record label game, created Righteous Babe Records. Since then, she's recorded solo albums, band albums, other artists, and through hard work, not only have her fans' interests been ahead of any controls of multinational companies, her own label makes something over $5 million each year.

Not all musicians have the drive or determination of Ani. Still, in 2010, it's pretty hard to say that any artist or group that is serious about their music and their fans really needs to cow-tow to a major label.

More than ever, there are alternatives to the major label system to getting music out, connecting with fans, making a living etc. etc. and which will not result in anyone controlling how or where your videos can be embedded.

[Funkdok]

EMI doesn't have shareholders, it's owned by a private equity firm called Terra Firma.

[DJRose]

It was 1989 when Ani DiFranco, knowing she did not want to play the corporate record label game, created Righteous Babe Records.

As I remember the story, Ani created Righteous Babe because she decided she ought to have a record deal, so she gave herself one. It wasn't that she was trying to be subversive, although that's a great story for today's climate. Ani is an incredibly talented musician who deserves everything that has come to her, but to hold everyone up to her standards is unreasonable.

That's all I'm going to say about this for the moment, because it's not like any of these people are reading any of these responses.

OK, except for this, because this pisses me off:

More than ever, there are alternatives to the major label system to getting music out, connecting with fans, making a living etc. etc. and which will not result in anyone controlling how or where your videos can be embedded.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! I mean really. Have you ever even listened to an OK Go song (other than the one playing when they dance on the treadmills)?! This band has been out connecting with fans since before that was the buzzword. When people write books on how to connect with fans, they call these guys. I went to the Future of Music's Policy Summit and they had this PR expert speak on how musicians should go about connecting with their fans and the FIRST THING SHE SAID was "Well, we should talk about OK Go right off the bat."

This post has been edited by DJRose: Jan 20 2010, 08:36 PM

[Cornelius]

Ani created Righteous Babe because she realized what the corporate mentality is about - and she wanted no part of it.

Again, other artists/bands may not have realized it in 1989, though, with some careful consideration, they well could.

In 2010 any musician who wants to serve their fans firstly, but is beholden to a major label, has to accept they can't have their cake and eat it too. It's high time to make changes.

When Ani refused to perform on the Letterman show 'cause they wanted to her to perform a less controversial song than was arranged, here's what she said:

"“That is the problem with our society right there — there’s no way I’m going to @#%$ participate in it. I’ve structured my whole life to not participate in it. Saying no to a record company when I was 20 years old and starving, looking forward to a whole lot of years of starving and working on my own — that’s difficult. Saying no to playing on this one TV show was really easy, but that gets a lot of notoriety because it’s @#%$ TV.”"

Too often we hear musicians rationalizing why they are in bed with big corporations. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect integrity. Again not everyone is as quick to realize the game as Ani DiFranco. But, once it's dead obvious, then, still playing the game is pretty much a self-serving gambit however it's rationalized.

p.s. I did not say OK Go don't connect with their fans. The point is that there are ways to connect with fans which will not result in anyone controlling how or where a band's videos can be embedded.

This post has been edited by Cornelius: Jan 20 2010, 08:42 PM

[oak]

1st of all, i wanna congratulate u guys for listening to the complaints and actually do smth.

2nd, as someone from the other side of the pond, in a small country in EU, i dont even get a youtube vid from EMI or Sony!

All i get is a big fat warning saying "This video contains content from EMI. It is no longer available in your country." Meaning:
"we don't actually care bout you and we don't you to even get to know this band".

Same stuff happens with most of Australian Bands from the major labels.

Well, if i really like the band i might email the band and go bla bla, but.. with so many awesome artists out there and so little time, why should i care?


Anyway, thanks to your efforts from spreading the word (vid). Both song and video are great!

Best of luck
<3 Aok

PS: that "crap" bout the advertisers dont wanna reach out to the wrong crowd needs more logic.

[bullshituous]

Well, with 336 people currently reading this thread, it seems like the whole "controversy" itself is drawing new people to check out the band.

[jedi_grrlie]

Still, in 2010, it's pretty hard to say that any artist or group that is serious about their music and their fans really needs to cow-tow to a major label.

More than ever, there are alternatives to the major label system to getting music out, connecting with fans, making a living etc. etc. and which will not result in anyone controlling how or where your videos can be embedded.

Of course there are. More now than ever. More than there were in 2001 when they signed to Capitol in the first place.

In 2010 any musician who wants to serve their fans firstly, but is beholden to a major label, has to accept they can't have their cake and eat it too. It's high time to make changes.

Yes, this is very true. You have to give up a certain amount of control and accept certain conditions when entering into a contract, that's obvious. Nobody's denying that.

However, I think Irene made an astute point when she noted that music videos have gone from a promotional tool - a way to get even more people to listen to a band and buy their record - to a source of controlled revenue. Rather than exposing it to the largest audience possible and thereby upping the number of potential album-buyers, they want to control distribution in order to up revenue that is being lost because of the dropping interest in purchasing records. I don't think it's unreasonable for a band on even a major label to turn around and say, "Hey, you know what? This is fucked up. You're taking one of our best promotional outlets and cutting it off from the world. This isn't only bad for us, this is bad for you, too." Part of Capitol's job, apart from signing the checks, is promoting the damn music that they now own precisely because they sign the checks. This is a really really bad way to go about doing that.

I do agree that as time goes on, there are more and more viable options for artists to get their music out there without the aid of a major. Maybe if all the artists revolted, things would change, but we're clearly not at the point yet. Perhaps, if we put OK Go circa shopping for a label in the early 2000s in 2010, they wouldn't make the same decision. Perhaps, if given the chance, they would take back that decision. But I don't think it's fair to make a band accountable for the label's inability to hold up part of their end of the deal by failing to promote the album in a reasonable manner, which is not only good for the band but good for the label itself.

And I agree with Rachel that you can't hold every band up to Ani. More than that, if OK Go had gone the start-your-own-label route, whether or not they would have or could have attained the success she did is debatable.

I'll say it again, I'm certainly not pro-major. At the same time, I think telling a band that would like to see their hard work go somewhere without having to jump through what I think we all agree are ridiculous hoops that it's their own damn fault because, after all, they signed to a major and could have just started their own label and that's just indicative of how much they aren't serious, is somewhat unfair.