If you want to know why the major labels are such a loathsome construct, look no further than this article on The New Yorker's website. Looked at properly, it tells you everything you need to know. I actually find it remarkable that Bill Wyman (no, not that Bill Wyman) didn't come to the same conclusions that I did.
Michael Jackson's Thriller is famous for a lot of things, but it's famous most of all for being the biggest selling album in the history of ever. But they can't seem to determine with any accuracy just how many copies it's sold. As Wyman and Guillaume Vieira have determined, Thriller has sold 66.2 million copies, but every one else puts the figure at about 100 million, a number I'm not aware of Sony Music ever having discouraged.
In fairness, it's entirely likely that Sony doesn't even know how many units its moved. There was nothing that even resembled accurate accounting until the advent of Soundscan in 1991. Can you think of another industry that waited over 70 years to figure out how its product was selling? I can't.
My point is that if Sony can't be bothered to track sales with any degree of accuracy, it stands to reason that Michael Jackson himself (and now his estate) was never properly paid for his work. And Jackson was something of a big deal, with no shortage of accountants and lawyers at his disposal. If the industry felt that they could fuck him with impunity, can you imagine what they regularly do to everybody else?
But don't think for a second that the major labels are content to fuck over their artists. Ho, ho, don't be silly. They'll you rape you, the consumer, just as hard and dryly as humanly possible, too! We are the tortoise to their scorpion, and this is just what they do.
Since the industry long ago gave up even the pretense of signing something new or original, the sales for new artists are pathetic. But they still have something to sell you - the stuff you already bought months, years or even decades ago.
They have the rights to your favorite musician's catalogue, which they've recently started exploiting as ferociously as they humanly can. You see, they don't just own the masters from the albums you bought way back when, they own all the rehearsals, alternate takes and unreleased material, too. If your avorite musician recorded it, the label owns it. They can remix and remaster that shit endlessly, secure in the knowledge that you'll buy the same thing again and again, mostly because you're stupid.
The record companies stopped being about music almost twenty years ago and devoted themselves almost exclusively to marketing, which is what makes this document so fascinating.
The twentieth anniversary of Nirvana's final studio album, In Utero, is this coming September and Interscope would very much like you to buy it again. You see, this is only the beginning of January and the market seeding has already started in full force.
Collapse Board doesn't say where this memo comes from, but everything about it reads like it could have only come from Interscope's marketing department. It's so sleazy and selective with the facts that I can't imagine that the Estate of Kurt Cobain, Krist Novoselic or Dave Grohl had anything to do with it, and Courtney Love couldn't pull it off without dozens of spelling and grammatical errors.
Let's review it together, shall we?
This memo is being sent out to prepare everyone for the major musical event of 2013. I am speaking, of course, about the 20th anniversary reissue of In Utero by Nirvana. Our friends at Pitchfork will produce a news item around May letting people know that the reissue is coming. Details will be scant, but it will nevertheless grease the wheels and allow a suitable amount of excitement to build up before the actual reissue. When the reviews start to appear it is vital that they all hold to a similar pattern. To understand why this is the case we must look once more to The Beatles. The sheer amount of Beatles literature (and its continued market success) should tell us all one very important fact: people not only like to read the same story over and over again, they demand it. Our job is to retell the story, to reinforce the legends, to emphasise the inflexibility of the narrative. So, given these facts I’ve prepared some bulletin points that focus on what each review should highlight:
Loosely translated, what they're saying is: "Lookee, we haven't signed anything worthwhile since Poor Dead Kurt iced himself, so we're going to re-sell his remains as thoroughly as we can. Of course, even pituitary retards, small children and household pets are too savvy to trust us at this point, so we'll market it through bloggers, who are dumb enough to do our unholy bidding for next to nothing. The Beatles re-sell their shit over and over, so why can't Nirvana? Our customers are desperate and dumb, so they'll take whatever we throw at them. Sure, most of them will steal it on BitTorrent, but there are easily 300,000 completest geeks out there who will pay a premium for the shitty new packaging that we'll wrap around the music they bought in 1993."
1. Give some brief background details. This is called SETTING THE SCENE. The Nirvana/Kurt Cobain legend must reinforce again and again the idea of the reluctant star, the uncomfortable voice of a generation. I recommend the use of the term “thrust into the limelight”. It functions beautifully for our purposes. I can’t stress enough that if the tragedy of the story is to emerge it can only do so from the idea of the reluctant star. Nevermind made them famous. What would they do now? (If you must mention Incesticide, be sure to call it a “stopgap” release.)
"Yes, let's SET THE SCENE in exactly the way that Cobain was most uncomfortable with when he was alive. He hated the 'voice of a generation' nonsense as thoroughly as Bob Dylan did. It's too bad that Dylan's still alive because Sony-Columbia could make even more money calling Bob that. Let's also pretend that guys join bands to remain anonymous, otherwise our 'thrust into the limelight' narrative looks completely fucking idiotic. We'll also pretend that Geffen didn't buy the Incesticide tracks from Sub Pop as a means of further monetizing the tidal wave that was Nevermindso shortly after its release, while giving Cobain time to write In Utero.
2. In Utero must be viewed as their attempt to regain punk credibility. Nirvana are on a major label, but you should present Cobain as a punk rocker at heart. Further tragedy can be wrung from the idea of the compromise that Nirvana made when they opted to sweeten two of the Steve Albini-produced tracks and make them more airplay friendly. (Please note: the original Albini-produced album will be available with the reissue. We have several bloggers working on reviews that seek to dismiss the original release and describe the original Albini mix as a ‘revelation’. This should bring the Nevermind haters on board).
"We'd really like you to be diligent about not pointing out that DGC despised the "punk rocker at heart" aspect of Cobain to the point that we initially refused to release In Utero at all. We wanted another "Smells Like Teen Spirit" so bad that we would've sold our grandmas into white slavery to get it. And boy, were we pissed when the dead junkie didn't give it to us! Let's also try to ignore that the "tragic compromise" of the remixes was forced on the band by, uh, us. Okay? We had never heard of Steve Albini before Nirvana hired him, so we knew that we'd hate him. Thankfully, Albini's precious 'indie credibility' dictated that he work for a flat fee instead of a percentage of royalties, which means we can endlessly repackage his work without paying him, twenty years after we threatened to not release it at all. #Winning! (Please note: Only two of the tracks on In Utero, "Heart-Shaped Box" and "All Apologies" were remixed by R.E.M's fantastic producer, Scott Litt. Let's not emphasize the fact that we're essentially putting the same CD in one package twice, okay? The fans are shitheads, but let's not rub our wanton robbery in their faces.)"
3.The reissue itself. The best way to get people to buy an album twice is to say it has been remastered. This usually amounts to making it louder, but this is where reviews can be crucial. The reviewer must create an unscratchable itch in the reader that makes them view the original release as an inferior product. Phrases like “went back to the original master tapes” and “working with the band” help, but it must be more than that. Use other phrases like “Cobain’s aching howl sounds even more revelatory” (be careful not to overuse revelation/revelatory), and indicate that the remastering job “breathes new life” into the album. Don’t insinuate that the mix has changed, more that it has been enhanced so that you hear everything with new ears.
"You know as well as we do that we're fucking robbing both the grave and the audience here but we've learned to lie in ways that makes it seem that we aren't. By the way, the modern compressors that make everything sound like shit sure are a good way of tricking stupid people into giving us more money for something they already own and sounds pretty okay. Try to avoid mentioning that the only thing we did with the original masters was feed them into a computer and boosted the levels indiscriminately, which we could've just as easily done with a digital copy."
4.The bonus tracks. The original Albini mix will be a huge draw. Ultimately this will be the thing that convinces the doubters to part with their money. When dealing with the original Albini mix, explore the idea of compromise versus Cobain’s “original vision”, and don’t miss the opportunity to bring tragedy to the surface once again.
"With the 'bonus tracks,' imply that there's more there than "I Hate Myself and Want to Die," which Cobain himself made the decision to leave off of In Utero and was later released on The Beavis and Butt-Head Experience and the With the Lights Out box set. But if we're going to exploit a sad man's suicide to trick people out of their hard-earned money in a shitty economy, I can't think of a better way to do it that putting out a song called "I Hate Myself and Want to Die," can you?"
5. Summing up. Two things are essential when summing up In Utero: It must be touted as the best Nirvana album. A phrase like “though Nevermind was their breakthrough, In Utero is undoubtedly their best” should work fine. You might want to say “may well be their best”. We’ve already sold them Nevermind by making it seem like a special moment in musical history, so let’s sell them In Utero by pointing out that it’s actually their best. This time, it’s all about the music. The second thing to emphasise is that In Utero must be seen as the last will and testament of a soul not long for this world. Stress how dark, disjointed, and angry the album is. Stress its compromised creation. Be sure to include a sentence along the lines of “just over six months after In Utero’s release Cobain would be dead by his own hand”. By all means, mention heroin and suicide attempts but make sure Cobain’s untimely death seems tragic yet inevitable.
"Try not to say that we here at Interscope hated In Utero without actually saying that we hated In Utero, it's producer, the mixes and, increasingly, the guy who wrote it. God, he was a pain in the ass. Punk rock geeks, especially those under 50, are pretty gullible, so if you're a poseur blogger cunt, they'll probably believe you when you say that In Utero is a better collection of songs than Nevermind. Definitely don't ask anyone if they can hum "Milk It" or "tourette's" or remember anything at all about those songs. Also, suicide!"
Kurt Cobain: Reluctant star. Pressure. Compromise. Depression. Heroin. Death. It’s that simple. Don’t feel like you are selling yourself short by sticking to these guidelines. Instead know that you are performing a public service. You are providing comfort and certitude in a world of confusion. You are giving people something to believe in. You are helping to make the art of Kurt Cobain immortal. Expect more high profile media events along the lines of the Nirvana/McCartney collaboration before long and, with any luck, we can anticipate a lucrative last quarter in 2013. One last thing: is 2014 too early for a 15th anniversary of the first White Stripes album, or should we wait for the 20th anniversary? I look forward to your feedback. Let’s make the myths.
"Kurt Cobain: Talented guy who got in over his head. Mentally ill. Junkie. Suicide. Cash cow that we own forever. Don't actually say any of that, even though it's true. It makes us look heartless and god knows the music industry has enough image problems. You are telling half-truths and outright lies so that we can exploit a dead 27 year old for a shit-ton of money, very little of which we'll be sharing with you blogger ghouls. We will beat this drum into the fucking ground all year until people buy the In Utero re-release just to shut us the fuck up. It's too bad that we can't mention the Foo Fighters, but they're signed to RCA and we're afraid of getting sued. Why doesn't Intercope own RCA yet? I know that I haven't mentioned anything crazy, like new music or artists in this wildly deceitful memo but ... White Stripes! We own their masters too, and Jack Black can't do a fucking thing about it! Now let's go out there and lie, people! Daddy needs a new Escalade!"
There. You now know everything you ever needed to about the music industry! Congratulations!
Special thanks to Collapse Board, Buddyhead and Spin for publishing this excrement and bringing it to my attention.
0 comments:
Post a Comment