Music should be free. If you don't want it 'stolen' then don't record it.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

a) It was started by someone who has ZERO experience in industry, Mom & dad buys all his gear and food and...

b) Yep. When Disney and Coke Cola become our labels, do you think we'll get more Marilyn Mansons or more Hanna Montannas?

c) And counting... this is the part that freaks me out more than anything. I "get" some average schmuck maybe not feeling the need to support artists for their hard work, but fellow musicians?

Sad.

Pathetic.

And scary as hell.

And there's plenty more like ElginChris... beyond sad.


-Andrews

Yeah. That's what really bothers me. When some schmuck like my buddy Tony (who I don't think has ever owned a guitar he didn't sell in 6 months and doesn't play the drum kit I loaned him while living off his wife's family money) says stuff like that I can dismiss it because he's basically an idiot, but somebody who claims to be a real musician? Or engineer/studio owner? (no, not you, Mike. I'm talking about somebody in another of these stupid threads...... http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5537168-post33.html)

I dunno.... makes ya wanna whop 'em upside the haid with a board and knock some sense into 'em...... if it were only that easy........

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

a) It was started by someone who has ZERO experience in industry, Mom & dad buys all his gear and food and...

b) Yep. When Disney and Coke Cola become our labels, do you think we'll get more Marilyn Mansons or more Hanna Montannas?

c) And counting... this is the part that freaks me out more than anything. I "get" some average schmuck maybe not feeling the need to support artists for their hard work, but fellow musicians?

Sad.

Pathetic.

And scary as hell.

And there's plenty more like ElginChris... beyond sad.


-Andrews

Disney already is a label.

I head tonight that Coke has been a label in Europe for several years. I have no verification other than one person saying it's been done. Maybe they mean this?

Global Music Anthem - Press Release - Coca-Cola


I don't see the logic in assuming that the ratio will change from where it is now. I think it's safe to assume that genres will change enough that it will be impossible to compare anyway.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

I head tonight that Coke has been a label in Europe for several years.

Never seen or heard of it.
Could be though I guess.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Chrisso already found it. I haven't deleted any posts.

Bingo. thumbsup

[Mike Caffrey]

Here's another link worth reading.

Inside Coca-Cola's Music-Powered Campaign



"Jonathan Daniel said that the deal was "the most generous a company has ever been in a work-for-hire situation." "

I wonder what that means.

[chrisso]

I got one paragraph in and nearly threw up on the qwerty....

working Coca-Cola's trademarked five-note whistle into the track was the most difficult musical challenge for the group.

Really? This is the bright new future for music?
This is a positive in your eyes?

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Chrisso already found it. I haven't deleted any posts.

I hadn't seen your post that you just linked to, but boy is that filled with some crazy delusions and projections.

Could be. Incomplete information can do that.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I got one paragraph in and nearly threw up on the qwerty....


Really? This is the bright new future for music?
This is a positive in your eyes?

I don't think it means anything for music. Coke and put their jingle in 1,000 songs a year and it's still not even 1% of the music being made.

I do think that it means that there are a few musicians who've got some extra money to fund whatever they want musically. I bet a few people got hire to work on the project in a variety of ways. It means Jonathan Daniel has a relationship with yet another funding entity that he can now approach regarding any new artist he believes in.

I doubt that these artists are going to incorporate that melody in to all future songs they write. I'd bet that the artists involved will have an easier time making the music they want to make after participating in this.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

I don't think it means anything for music. Coke and put their jingle in 1,000 songs a year and it's still not even 1% of the music being made.

I do think that it means that there are a few musicians who've got some extra money to fund whatever they want musically. I bet a few people got hire to work on the project in a variety of ways. It means Jonathan Daniel has a relationship with yet another funding entity that he can now approach regarding any new artist he believes in.

I doubt that these artists are going to incorporate that melody in to all future songs they write. I'd bet that the artists involved will have an easier time making the music they want to make after participating in this.

So tell me, did Coke make this deal available to unknown artists or only name/signed acts? Did they exert any type of artistic control over the songs their jingle was inserted into? I'm not opposed to using product names (or themes) in songs as long as it's under the artist's control. Hell, I recently mentioned Mickey D's for free in an old school CW song about losing your wife, job,etc, and getting drunk on beer. Dunno if McDonald's is gonna like it much....... Would be nice to get paid for the product placement, it could pay for the tape to make the album........ Come to think of it I referenced General Motors as well, although somehow I doubt they'd really wanna pay to be in a drinkin' song........

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

I don't think it means anything for music. Coke and put their jingle in 1,000 songs a year and it's still not even 1% of the music being made.

It's just that in the major collaboration you've chosen to example, they did insist their jingle was inserted into the song.
Major alarm bells are going off for me. If they aren't for you I wonder if you do have a financial stake in this or a similar model.

[Dirty Halo]

Wow, talk about missing the point. OF COURSE Disney has a label... are they signing Marilyn Manson or Hanna Montana?

I have some pretty extensive experience in advertising and know many MANY clients like Disney, Coke, P&G first hand and can 100% assure you that artistic expression and dedication to what is musically important is NOT their first... or millionth agenda.

If you've ever been to a focus group, you'd know that any musical expression or lyric outside the very narrowly defined demographic target, pre-assigned with brand attributes, yada yada... is not happening.

And the thing is, that's ok. That's their business. And that is the point.

Why should paper-towels have anything to do with your music.

(And how much artistic credibility are you giving those killer new "Free Credit Report.com" bands? )

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

(And how much artistic credibility are you giving those killer new "Free Credit Report.com" bands? )

Bands? BANDS? WoW, man I only know of ONE "Free credit report dot Com band" and theyr like, AWESOME. I mean that dude in the pirate hat, like is so kewl too bad he has to work atthefishanchipsmansthatssonothappening.really.......

[Dirty Halo]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Bands? BANDS? WoW, man I only know of ONE "Free credit report dot Com band" and theyr like, AWESOME. I mean that dude in the pirate hat, like is so kewl too bad he has to work atthefishanchipsmansthatssonothappening.really.......

Oh man, you're in for one painful surprise Watch more TV, it's uh, "good" for you

But seriously, they did a "band search" and now the campaign is all these "real" bands doing their versions of the "Free credit Report.com" song...

PAINFUL!!!! My eeeeeeeears are bleeeeeeeding!!!!

THAT is the future of music and advertising.

Keep it up ElginChris and fellow butt-pirates, THAT is your future.

-Andrews

[chrisso]

Just to add a comment that I know you already realise......

But the discussion of various 'band' scenarios is the easiest avenue forward for the free music/alternative income lobby. It's so obvious a long term band project can benefit from building a loyal fanbase, and that a long term band project has easy to understand alternative revenues like concert tickets, fanzines, t-shirts, coffee mugs, acting roles in movies etc.......
Once you start looking at the music recorded by entities that don't fit the 'band' model, things get a whole lot more complicated.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

So tell me, did Coke make this deal available to unknown artists or only name/signed acts? Did they exert any type of artistic control over the songs their jingle was inserted into? I'm not opposed to using product names (or themes) in songs as long as it's under the artist's control. Hell, I recently mentioned Mickey D's for free in an old school CW song about losing your wife, job,etc, and getting drunk on beer. Dunno if McDonald's is gonna like it much....... Would be nice to get paid for the product placement, it could pay for the tape to make the album........ Come to think of it I referenced General Motors as well, although somehow I doubt they'd really wanna pay to be in a drinkin' song........

I don't know anything about it beyond what I found in the Google search.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by chrisso

It's just that in the major collaboration you've chosen to example, they did insist their jingle was inserted into the song.
Major alarm bells are going off for me. If they aren't for you I wonder if you do have a financial stake in this or a similar model.

I didn't give this as an example of anything. If you scroll back, you see that there was a reference to Coke as a label. Coincidentally, a guitar player mentioned something similar at a session the same day, so I posted his comment and did a Google search and posted what I found. This may or may not be what he was talking about.

I don't have any financial stake in any business model. Other than there being someone with money to pay me to make records.

[JustinW]

Only read the first post, but...


Personally, I dont think music should be free but the industry needs to adapt, which it is doing.

They need to find a price point where people would rather just pay the x cents for the song and DL it instantly with the correct metadata and album art etc...

I think that would be around 15 cents a song in the US, but that's just a guess.

A big reason I don't pirate music is sheer laziness. I don't feel like getting songs with wrong metadata and no art work and have to go change all that. No joke, I bought a couple songs off amazon that I actually own the physical cds for because the price was right (for me) and I was feeling exceptionally lazy that day.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

Wow, talk about missing the point. OF COURSE Disney has a label... are they signing Marilyn Manson or Hanna Montana?

I have some pretty extensive experience in advertising and know many MANY clients like Disney, Coke, P&G first hand and can 100% assure you that artistic expression and dedication to what is musically important is NOT their first... or millionth agenda.

If you've ever been to a focus group, you'd know that any musical expression or lyric outside the very narrowly defined demographic target, pre-assigned with brand attributes, yada yada... is not happening.

And the thing is, that's ok. That's their business. And that is the point.

Why should paper-towels have anything to do with your music.

(And how much artistic credibility are you giving those killer new "Free Credit Report.com" bands? )

Seeing as there is only one corporation in the entire world, I agree that it's a problem.

Oh wait, Disney is not the only corporation and not every corporation has the same image and message as Disney.

What will poor Hanna Montana do when Harley Davidson starts a label and she's been dropped by Disney? Are they going to make pink motorcycles? Are they going to make her wear leather or will they both look for better matches.

Have you really been in advertising? If you had, you must have had more than the two clients of Disney and Coke. Are you really truly unable to think of any other corporations besides them?

Are you really unable to post anything besides the hyperbolic nonsense of pairing Marilyn Manson and Disney?

What about a country artist and John Deere or New Holland?

Hell, what about Mark Cuban? He owns a basketball team, why not a band?

If people should all own their labor and what it creates, and I'm not arguing against that, shouldn't the players own the team and hire their own coach? The should be able to sell the broadcast rights to the game they create.

Why is it that Mark Cuban's players can barely eek out a living playing on his team? Or is that not the case? Why would it be any different if he owned a band?


There are an infinite number of was to finance a musical artist and then recoup for the investor and provide income for the artist without selling their recordings.

As long as you continue to be willfully unimaginative you're going to continue seeing solely the abusurdities of Disney and Marilyn Manson. If that's what you want to imagine nothing else working besides the model that doesn't work now, go right ahead.

We've seen record executives who care only about profit, so it's safe to assume that in any new model, there will be people who continue to fund music solely with that intent. But we've also seen record executives who's motivation is music that they believe in artistically and that will continue in any model regardless of where the funding comes from.

There are few people as cynical as I am and even I can see that there will always be people who are motivated by the music first.

[Dirty Halo]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Seeing as there is only one corporation in the entire world, I agree that it's a problem.

Oh wait, Disney is not the only corporation and not every corporation has the same image and message as Disney.

What will poor Hanna Montana do when Harley Davidson starts a label and she's been dropped by Disney? Are they going to make pink motorcycles? Are they going to make her wear leather or will they both look for better matches.

Have you really been in advertising? If you had, you must have had more than the two clients of Disney and Coke. Are you really truly unable to think of any other corporations besides them?

Are you really unable to post anything besides the hyperbolic nonsense of pairing Marilyn Manson and Disney?

What about a country artist and John Deere or New Holland?

Hell, what about Mark Cuban? He owns a basketball team, why not a band?

If people should all own their labor and what it creates, and I'm not arguing against that, shouldn't the players own the team and hire their own coach? The should be able to sell the broadcast rights to the game they create.

Why is it that Mark Cuban's players can barely eek out a living playing on his team? Or is that not the case? Why would it be any different if he owned a band?


There are an infinite number of was to finance a musical artist and then recoup for the investor and provide income for the artist without selling their recordings.

As long as you continue to be willfully unimaginative you're going to continue seeing solely the abusurdities of Disney and Marilyn Manson. If that's what you want to imagine nothing else working besides the model that doesn't work now, go right ahead.

We've seen record executives who care only about profit, so it's safe to assume that in any new model, there will be people who continue to fund music solely with that intent. But we've also seen record executives who's motivation is music that they believe in artistically and that will continue in any model regardless of where the funding comes from.

There are few people as cynical as I am and even I can see that there will always be people who are motivated by the music first.

Once again, you don't know of which you speak.

Do I have experience in advertising? More than you can possibly imagine. I don't often do this, but here I can say that I GUARANTEE you I have more inside knowledge and personal experience of the full advertising world than anyone else here and most certainly you.

If you watched TV today, you've seen my work.

And speaking of hyperbole, when someone uses a few examples, that is what they are; a FEW examples.

I have been inside some very complex deals between advertisers and MAJOR artists and can tell you, even great brands with "seemingly" perfect matching bands don't work. It doesn't. Maybe not NEVER, always an exception, but not enough to make it even a remote feasible solution.

So, go try again.

On a related note, it's interesting that you put the responsibility of alternate income ideas on us, when it is YOU defending the "music should be free" model

In MY model, an artist invests time, work, craft and money into creating their product of recorded music and people pay for that product...

Pimping yourself out to hock Tampons isn't really why I got into music (hope you can get past the "hyperbole" and actually get the point... for a change)

And for the life of me, I can't really figure out WHAT you are for, btw???


-Andrews

P.S. Unlike some, I'm not talking out my ass, so if you know my full name, feel free to Google it, if not, PM me (not too crazy about my name coming up associated with this stupidity).

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

it's interesting that you put the responsibility of alternate income ideas on us, when it is YOU defending the "music should be free" model

In MY model, an artist invests time, work, craft and money into creating their product of recorded music and people pay for that product...

Pimping yourself out to hock Tampons isn't really why I got into music

Me neither.
Good points.

[lagavulin16]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

Once again, you don't know of which you speak.

Do I have experience in advertising? More than you can possibly imagine. I don't often do this, but here I can say that I GUARANTEE you I have more inside knowledge and personal experience of the full advertising world than anyone else here and most certainly you.

If you watched TV today, you've seen my work.

And speaking of hyperbole, when someone uses a few examples, that is what they are; a FEW examples.

I have been inside some very complex deals between advertisers and MAJOR artists and can tell you, even great brands with "seemingly" perfect matching bands don't work. It doesn't. Maybe not NEVER, always an exception, but not enough to make it even a remote feasible solution.

So, go try again.

On a related note, it's interesting that you put the responsibility of alternate income ideas on us, when it is YOU defending the "music should be free" model

In MY model, an artist invests time, work, craft and money into creating their product of recorded music and people pay for that product...

Pimping yourself out to hock Tampons isn't really why I got into music (hope you can get past the "hyperbole" and actually get the point... for a change)

And for the life of me, I can't really figure out WHAT you are for, btw???


-Andrews

P.S. Unlike some, I'm not talking out my ass, so if you know my full name, feel free to Google it, if not, PM me (not too crazy about my name coming up associated with this stupidity).

Please don't take the approach that if the person questioning you doesn't have a perfect solution, their opinion is invalidated. While it may take a genius to come up with a solution it does not take a genius to point out that the current system is flawed.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

Please don't take the approach that if the person questioning you doesn't have a perfect solution, their opinion is invalidated.

I think the bulk of the comment was about who has the most experience in the area being discussed.

[Dirty Halo]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

Please don't take the approach that if the person questioning you doesn't have a perfect solution, their opinion is invalidated. While it may take a genius to come up with a solution it does not take a genius to point out that the current system is flawed.

You make a VERY interesting point and by your OWN logic, while the current "system" is flawed, it would be foolish to think the "system" and what the system is protecting are one and the same. They are not.

So, are you arguing that the current "system" is flawed or the concept of paying for music?

-Andrews

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

Once again, you don't know of which you speak.

Do I have experience in advertising? More than you can possibly imagine. I don't often do this, but here I can say that I GUARANTEE you I have more inside knowledge and personal experience of the full advertising world than anyone else here and most certainly you.

If you watched TV today, you've seen my work.

And speaking of hyperbole, when someone uses a few examples, that is what they are; a FEW examples.

I have been inside some very complex deals between advertisers and MAJOR artists and can tell you, even great brands with "seemingly" perfect matching bands don't work. It doesn't. Maybe not NEVER, always an exception, but not enough to make it even a remote feasible solution.

So, go try again.

On a related note, it's interesting that you put the responsibility of alternate income ideas on us, when it is YOU defending the "music should be free" model

In MY model, an artist invests time, work, craft and money into creating their product of recorded music and people pay for that product...

Pimping yourself out to hock Tampons isn't really why I got into music (hope you can get past the "hyperbole" and actually get the point... for a change)

And for the life of me, I can't really figure out WHAT you are for, btw???


-Andrews

P.S. Unlike some, I'm not talking out my ass, so if you know my full name, feel free to Google it, if not, PM me (not too crazy about my name coming up associated with this stupidity).

I'm not defending a "music should be free" model. I don't agree with the OP. I do think that artists would be better off if they don't work on a revenue model based on having record sales income. That's very different from being for piracy and allowing direct peer to peer sharing could also undermine a model where an artist is giving away their music.

I'm not putting the responsibility of alternate ideas on you, I'm saying maybe rather that trying to come up with absurd pairings that you know won't work, give examples of ones you think will work.

Maybe since you've spent all that time in the ad business you don't understand how record sales work. An artist "invests time, work, craft and money into creating their product of recorded music and people pay for that product..." and except for very few instances all of that money goes to the label. "Your" system is the one in which the artist pays for everything and then once everything is paid for, 90% of the profit goes to the label. Then out of the remaining 10% a cut goes to the producer and then the manager takes a cut of anything that's left. And the artist doesn't own their recordings.

And even worse, the artist goes to make their second album, the label decides not to put it out and drop the artist and then they loose their best new songs to the re-recording restriction. Their songs are for all intents and purposes taken away for years without any form of compensation. That's your system.


In the end, all new artists have no leverage. They continue to have no leverage until they have fame. Once that happens an artist can get a fair deal in any model they want.

The only real question is whether or not there's a marketing advantage to free music. There are tons of diverse revenue streams available when people care about an artist.


Is kind ironic (in the Alanis meaning) that you didn't get in to music to hock tampons, yet you're in advertising for a living. I hope for your sake your selling washer and driers or something else more to your liking.

Are you very unhappy with what you do? I'm going to guess no. Yet you seem to think that all artists would be unhappy "hocking tampons" which is analogous to what you're doing if you're in advertising.

If an artist gets to spend their waking hours making their art, who cares where the money comes from to support that.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

I have been inside some very complex deals between advertisers and MAJOR artists and can tell you, even great brands with "seemingly" perfect matching bands don't work. It doesn't. Maybe not NEVER, always an exception, but not enough to make it even a remote feasible solution.

Why don't you tell us some details of those deals. Who they were between, what was proposed and why they didn't work.

You have to give specifics since you've criticized me for not being specific enough in my posts and you have to give dozens of answers, because you've said "a few" is not enough.

Go ahead and meet your own standards.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I think the bulk of the comment was about who has the most experience in the area being discussed.

The area being discussed is the future, not the past.


And really, how can you take any one seriously who suggests trying to pair Marilyn Manson with Disney? You'd think someone who's been there and done that would be able to suggest the obvious ones and explain why they don't work.

I'm not questioning his experience, just his imagination. My guess is that if he was paid to come up with a pairing between a corporation and an artist he'd come up with something more like the Lady Gaga and Polaroid deal, or Diddy and Cadilac or Jay-Z and Pantone etc rather than Manson and Disney.

[Dirty Halo]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

I'm not defending a "music should be free" model. I don't agree with the OP. I do think that artists would be better off if they don't work on a revenue model based on having record sales income. That's very different from being for piracy and allowing direct peer to peer sharing could also undermine a model where an artist is giving away their music.

I'm not putting the responsibility of alternate ideas on you, I'm saying maybe rather that trying to come up with absurd pairings that you know won't work, give examples of ones you think will work.

Maybe since you've spent all that time in the ad business you don't understand how record sales work. An artist "invests time, work, craft and money into creating their product of recorded music and people pay for that product..." and except for very few instances all of that money goes to the label. "Your" system is the one in which the artist pays for everything and then once everything is paid for, 90% of the profit goes to the label. Then out of the remaining 10% a cut goes to the producer and then the manager takes a cut of anything that's left. And the artist doesn't own their recordings.

And even worse, the artist goes to make their second album, the label decides not to put it out and drop the artist and then they loose their best new songs to the re-recording restriction. Their songs are for all intents and purposes taken away for years without any form of compensation. That's your system.


In the end, all new artists have no leverage. They continue to have no leverage until they have fame. Once that happens an artist can get a fair deal in any model they want.

The only real question is whether or not there's a marketing advantage to free music. There are tons of diverse revenue streams available when people care about an artist.


Is kind ironic (in the Alanis meaning) that you didn't get in to music to hock tampons, yet you're in advertising for a living. I hope for your sake your selling washer and driers or something else more to your liking.

Are you very unhappy with what you do? I'm going to guess no. Yet you seem to think that all artists would be unhappy "hocking tampons" which is analogous to what you're doing if you're in advertising.

If an artist gets to spend their waking hours making their art, who cares where the money comes from to support that.

Like I said, feel free to PM me and I'll give you all the info you want to Google my ass... until then, nice ASSumptions. Eh, wrong.

And even where you claim some professional knowledge, seems like you're working with just the basic public generalizations. I've had new artist deals with majors like RCA and indies like Radikal, happy to share those deal contracts... and then for yucks, I can share what those same deals look like in some "alternative" systems (read advertising).

And if you're not into reading through contracts, I can give you the Cliff notes: They are basically the same in the end.

As for your very last statement, that just about proves your grasp of the business of art. Who cares where the money comes from? It VERY much matters where the money comes from in very basic, pragmatic and artistic everyday ways.

Let's try even one basic example... If you are an artist who records an album, how many people do you want focus grouping your record to tell you which songs and what kind to put on your album?

Just sayin'.

And don't think that hasn't already been tried. (bingo)

[Dirty Halo]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Why don't you tell us some details of those deals. Who they were between, what was proposed and why they didn't work.

You have to give specifics since you've criticized me for not being specific enough in my posts and you have to give dozens of answers, because you've said "a few" is not enough.

Go ahead and meet your own standards.

Not a problem. Nike and Eric Clapton worked for a long time to find a deal where Nike acted as Clapton's record company, where they matched his previous deal, but the added full record sales, minus costs and all licensing went to Nike (in a nut shell).

Remember that album?

No.

Huh... Guess Eric didn't like getting feedback from the marketing department.

(And there was A LOT of money on the table there)

So, there's that of many.

Wanna move on now?


P.S. Still interesting to note that when I asked you for what you were for, you replied with what you don't agree with, what you aren't for and a veiled attack on me. So once again, what EXACTLY are you for???

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

If an artist gets to spend their waking hours making their art, who cares where the money comes from to support that.

Well yes, on the surface no one cares, but in reality, in practice it is important...which is where i agree with Dirty Halo.

Having dealt with film and tv companies and advertising (in the area of film trailers) I've found their values are very different to those of record companies.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

Like I said, feel free to PM me and I'll give you all the info you want to Google my ass... until then, nice ASSumptions. Eh, wrong.

And even where you claim some professional knowledge, seems like you're working with just the basic public generalizations. I've had new artist deals with majors like RCA and indies like Radikal, happy to share those deal contracts... and then for yucks, I can share what those same deals look like in some "alternative" systems (read advertising).

And if you're not into reading through contracts, I can give you the Cliff notes: They are basically the same in the end.

As for your very last statement, that just about proves your grasp of the business of art. Who cares where the money comes from? It VERY much matters where the money comes from in very basic, pragmatic and artistic everyday ways.

Let's try even one basic example... If you are an artist who records an album, how many people do you want focus grouping your record to tell you which songs and what kind to put on your album?

Just sayin'.

And don't think that hasn't already been tried. (bingo)

Do you really think that I don't believe that you work in advertising?

As for my last statement, do you think an artist making their art involves focus groups?

My point is that there are lots of ways for an artist to get paid without selling their recordings.

Do you think artists don't get saddled with all sorts of outside influences without advertising focus groups?