Scott Weiland: "The internet is all crap"

[andrew]

I don't think Scott dislikes record labels because of his contract with Atlantic. Ask just about anybody in a band signed to a label and they'll tell you how crappy things have been for the past 5 years.


Record sales have gotten consistently worse & a ton of labels have either folded or been consolidated. It doesn't take a contract to realize that.

[Peebs]

I agree with Scott.  The internet has not only degraded how well people write, but how they spell, phrases and words have been shortened to a few letters.  Anyone can have a blog, no talent needed.  I was just reading an interview from a few years ago with Scott in Prick Magazine and he said this about how the internet's harmed music:
 
Weiland: Now, here we are and there are some bands that are starting to happen, but it's really by doing things on their own within this sort of neo-indie label route. Even that is different because it's done more on the digital realm as opposed to the grassroots realm. Indie labels, back when my band first came out, were set up so you sent away for singles, and they were sent back via the mail. Now it's all instantaneous through MySpace and other internet programs. Is it good or is it bad?

I'm not so sure. I think it's great for new bands because this way their music can be heard immediately as opposed to maybe never having had a chance of being heard. At the same time, I think it possibly takes away some of the mystery because you have all this information so accessible right at your fingertips. It's a different world. I still romanticize with the older days. But then again, my favorite bands are still The Stones, The Beatles, and The Clash.
http://www.prickmag.net/scottweilandinterview.html
 
 

I dunno.  All I am reading in this thread is that the internet has given ignorant/stupid/uneducated people a voice; too much information is bad; internet is bad for music.

What this boils down to is freedom, free speech, and choice.

We have the same option to deal with people we don't agree with/think are stupid, ignorant, or undeducated that we have always had--don't listen to them.

I actually enjoy a few blogs.  They talk about news, then link to the newspaper articles that they are talking about.  This is great.  I can get my local paper and the LA Times delivered, and then I can read any paper in any other city--or other country--from my house.  I could read the same story from a left-leaning paper and a write-leaning paper.  That's awesome.

I can do real research as an alumni of my university.  The OED and online databases come in SO handy, and it's all on the internet.

The problem lies with those with credentials--journalists--either quoting blogs, or not doing their job themselves.  Why are journalists quoting blogs?  Why are journalists making up stories?  Just because you have credentials doesn't necessarily make you better than some blogger--but it often does.  Still, discussion and speech is GOOD.  If I hear a perspective I may not have, that is good.  If I research their statements, I can make a more informed decision. 

As far as spelling and grammar with users of the net:  The positive side from English academics is that students are engaging in writing, be it texting or typing.  It's not "standard" English, but that's okay.  Some students don't write or read at all, but many students are doing a lot of it.  Now, how do you channel that into the classroom?  I don't talk the way I write in undergrad/grad papers, and I don't write online with the same eye for editing or grammar as I do in those.  I also don't talk at home and with my friends the same way I do at work or to my boss or parents.  Everyone participates in several different discourses every day.  They key in the classroom is to get students to understand that using "standard" English will help them in their lives, but it doesn't have to replace how they talk online, via text, to their friends, etc.

As far as music goes, I couldn't disagree more.  To me, music today is much more like it was back in the day.  It doesn't have to be about anything other than the music and the quality of your band.  Live clips on youtube and songs on myspace can sell your band.  You don't have to make a video, you don't have to rely on a label to front you money.  Home recording is cheap, and now you can get your music to your fans in several different ways.

It has given us more choice, and that is always good.  So is information.

Free speech does not include or protect slander, defamation, bullying, threats, racism or child porn....
all of which are found on these interwebs.
the basic purpose of the internet the sharing of ideas, like minded people for a common purpose and as a tool for knowledge and growth I can agree with.
 
and seriously you think the internet has helped the music industry? Seriously? Yea musicians are certainly staying afloat on the 10 cents a song they make off itunes. If a local band doesn't get MAJOR sponsorship they can't afford to tour. there is no money now...who knows if they'll ever be.
Record companies never moved with the times. They didn't anticipate the internets possibilities. They thought they had the only product. So they consolidated till all there's left are a handful of companies and the only thing they will invest in is a sure bet to make money.
The music industry is dead and all you have at it's wake is Lady Gaga and American Idol shit...

[lovemachine97]

Free speech does not include or protect slander, defamation, bullying, threats, racism or child porn....
all of which are found on these interwebs.
the basic purpose of the internet the sharing of ideas, like minded people for a common purpose and as a tool for knowledge and growth I can agree with.
 
and seriously you think the internet has helped the music industry? Seriously? Yea musicians are certainly staying afloat on the 10 cents a song they make off itunes. If a local band doesn't get MAJOR sponsorship they can't afford to tour. there is no money now...who knows if they'll ever be.
Record companies never moved with the times. They didn't anticipate the internets possibilities. They thought they had the only product. So they consolidated till all there's left are a handful of companies and the only thing they will invest in is a sure bet to make money.
The music industry is dead and all you have at it's wake is Lady Gaga and American Idol shit...

Bullying, threatening, slander, child pornography, etc., occur every day, all day, internet or not.  I'm not gonna start calling the human existence in America as we know it "crap" because there's slander, bullying, and child porn in a society with free speech.  With all freedom, you have to take the good with the bad, and deal with the bad within the context of the law.  Further, being a racist, or using racial slurs, is not illegal, and should never be.

Anyway, I never said that the internet has "helped" the music industry.  The "industry", or whatever that means, seems to be hurting, but the power has shifted back to the bands/musicians, and that is a GOOD thing.  As a recording band, STP has never made great money.  The biggest portion of their income comes from songwriting and touring, and it always has.  The $0.10 per song on iTunes is actually equivalent to a damn good record contract, about a $1 per album.  Most bands don't even have it that good.  Profit comes from songwriting and from touring.

If you're a musician today, you can record at home for a fraction of the cost of a big studio and stream it or sell it on MySpace essentially for free.

If you want to be on iTunes, you don't need a major label, just a distributor.  I live in a podunk town and there are 4 local artist CDs that are currently on iTunes.  You just need a bar coded CD to sell, and then let Amazon or CD Baby sell it, and iTunes will sell it.  The labels hate iTunes because the prices are so low.  Wholesale cost on a CD is $12, so a band that had the good $1/album contract would get their $1, the label $11 from every CD sold.  But iTunes charges $9.99 and keeps about $0.33 per dollar.  After the artist with the good contract gets their 1$ per CD, the label is left with $5.70, or basically half of what they were getting for a CD.

I have a friend who booked and financed his own tour from a minimum wage job.  The first tour paid for itself, the second tour paid for a new EP to sell.  They will be getting the bar code treatement and put it on itunes as well.  It's not easy, but it can be done.  If you want to be completely independent and make a living, you probably can.  If you want to try and make it big, if a label sees you making money, they might want a piece of the action.

But because of the internet, consumers are free to choose what they like.  I can find more music than ever before.  I can watch a band on youtube.  I can probably purchase mp3s from their website if I like them, and then maybe catch them for $10 when they come through near my town--all without label help, if they want.  And these guys are making more money than they would as a no-name band on a label.

Good for music, good for musicians, bad for labels.  From the point of view of established bands, they're gonna have to tour a lot to continue to make money as album sales drop due to theft.  But more musicians can get their music heard, and there are more choices for how to hear it and purchase it.  THAT is good for US.

[Knuckles]

I haven't listened to the interview but is that part about him saying he was starting a band with Pete Doherty true?

I think Scott was just dissing the internet in regards to some of the rumours he probably reads.

I couldn't think of anything more worse for Scott's health lol.

[Rust]

Thanks for posting this - I missed the interview.


A great listen, more so as it was before the Brixton show. It gives a little insight into his headspace before a show - which is nice.


Loved the comment about The Terminator - I've been saying that for years.

[Knuckles]

Yeah, it's really cool to hear how calm he sounded before the show.

[Peebs]

Free speech does not include or protect slander, defamation, bullying, threats, racism or child porn....
all of which are found on these interwebs.
the basic purpose of the internet the sharing of ideas, like minded people for a common purpose and as a tool for knowledge and growth I can agree with.
 
and seriously you think the internet has helped the music industry? Seriously? Yea musicians are certainly staying afloat on the 10 cents a song they make off itunes. If a local band doesn't get MAJOR sponsorship they can't afford to tour. there is no money now...who knows if they'll ever be.
Record companies never moved with the times. They didn't anticipate the internets possibilities. They thought they had the only product. So they consolidated till all there's left are a handful of companies and the only thing they will invest in is a sure bet to make money.
The music industry is dead and all you have at it's wake is Lady Gaga and American Idol shit...

Bullying, threatening, slander, child pornography, etc., occur every day, all day, internet or not.  I'm not gonna start calling the human existence in America as we know it "crap" because there's slander, bullying, and child porn in a society with free speech.  With all freedom, you have to take the good with the bad, and deal with the bad within the context of the law.  Further, being a racist, or using racial slurs, is not illegal, and should never be.

Anyway, I never said that the internet has "helped" the music industry.  The "industry", or whatever that means, seems to be hurting, but the power has shifted back to the bands/musicians, and that is a GOOD thing.  As a recording band, STP has never made great money.  The biggest portion of their income comes from songwriting and touring, and it always has.  The $0.10 per song on iTunes is actually equivalent to a damn good record contract, about a $1 per album.  Most bands don't even have it that good.  Profit comes from songwriting and from touring.

If you're a musician today, you can record at home for a fraction of the cost of a big studio and stream it or sell it on MySpace essentially for free.

If you want to be on iTunes, you don't need a major label, just a distributor.  I live in a podunk town and there are 4 local artist CDs that are currently on iTunes.  You just need a bar coded CD to sell, and then let Amazon or CD Baby sell it, and iTunes will sell it.  The labels hate iTunes because the prices are so low.  Wholesale cost on a CD is $12, so a band that had the good $1/album contract would get their $1, the label $11 from every CD sold.  But iTunes charges $9.99 and keeps about $0.33 per dollar.  After the artist with the good contract gets their 1$ per CD, the label is left with $5.70, or basically half of what they were getting for a CD.

I have a friend who booked and financed his own tour from a minimum wage job.  The first tour paid for itself, the second tour paid for a new EP to sell.  They will be getting the bar code treatement and put it on itunes as well.  It's not easy, but it can be done.  If you want to be completely independent and make a living, you probably can.  If you want to try and make it big, if a label sees you making money, they might want a piece of the action.

But because of the internet, consumers are free to choose what they like.  I can find more music than ever before.  I can watch a band on youtube.  I can probably purchase mp3s from their website if I like them, and then maybe catch them for $10 when they come through near my town--all without label help, if they want.  And these guys are making more money than they would as a no-name band on a label.

Good for music, good for musicians, bad for labels.  From the point of view of established bands, they're gonna have to tour a lot to continue to make money as album sales drop due to theft.  But more musicians can get their music heard, and there are more choices for how to hear it and purchase it.  THAT is good for US.

SEEMS to be hurting?? It's hurt. You wanna talk to a few indie bands out their busting their asses, limited to one area of the country because they can't afford to "tour" on their own and making $0 dollars off itunes sales.


Yea, it's a LIVING for many. Not just a fun hobby.

Plus the it's not "the internet or not"...most of the activity is ILLEGAL and therefore not considered "free speech".
This is a serious question-how old are you?
Because prior to the internet and another lovely invention like "texting" threatening other kids in school was kept just there....the school yard. Now they set up FB pages to degrade someone. It becomes VIRAL. Same with "sexting" I mean really, when I was 13 the last thing I wanted to do was send a naked picture of myself to a boy, only to have him pass it on...and so on....and so on....
You can not spread lies or defame someone...back in the day it was kept to such lovely publications as the National Inquirer which you thumbed through on the supermarket check out line. Eventually someone would sue the National Enquirer. Now any a-hole like a Perez Hilton can set up a cheap website, say what he wants, use other people's photographs (which he was sued for)...guess what....you can't. His recent trouble surrounding Miley Cyrus proves that. There is a clear definition in the law between "fact" and "opinion". Opinion is permissable but if you try and make it a fact, you got a problem. so now because of the internet those alleged "facts" you are claiming is brought to millions.

And back in the day if you wanted "music" you bought it. There were boot lists (that you got off the back of Rolling Stone magazine) where people would exchange cassette tapes of bootleged live shows but for the most part you wanted a album you went to the record store and paid for it. You wanted to see a live act, you actually bought a ticket.
We didn't know the intricate details of everyones lives, when they farted, who they farted around and how the fart smelled. If Scott got arrested...you learned about it on the radio or MTV news....eventually. you didn't know 2 seconds after it happened with the accompanied mug shot.
Has this all changed society for the better? Yea..no so much.

[lovemachine97]

Most musicians that make a living playing music are not affected by the internet's impact on album sales.

The scope with which you are speaking is quite small.  On top of the bands that you and I listen to, there are also hired live performers, studio musicians, and songwriters.

Record labels and retail locations have been hit far more than musicians because of the internet's effect on album sales.  Record labels took 95% of the risk in releasing a new album, and took 95% of the profit.  It's not like all of a sudden the internet is raping the musicians' pocketbooks.  The labels are taking 95% of the hit.  CD retailers took a hit from big box stores that sold CDs below their $12 wholesale cost.  Now those same big box stores are seeing CD sales plummet.  Those loss leaders were important.  Now, companies like Best Buy are experimenting to see what will take that floor space (Best Buy is experimenting with musical instruments, specifically).  But in our lifetime,  bands never made much from CDs.  Only a small, small percentage of bands made millions on CD sales.  Most bands have made their money from touring, and that is more profitable today than ever before. 

But most musicians never see a significant part of their pay check come from album sales.  Hired live musicians, be it on tour for pop artists, orchestras, or broadway and off-broadway plays, aren't affected at all.  In fact, with touring as profitable as it is today, many more musicians are being hired to perform on tour.

But those who should find the internet to be the a great tool are Indie musicians.  It is so, so cheap to produce a studio-quality record from the house.  This is great for indie musicians, but also for studio musicians, who now have more opportunity to sell their services.  But the internet has given indie artists the choice of either offering their music to stream for free, to be downloaded for free, or purchased as EP/album only, single tracks, or they can get into the largest music retailer in the country, iTunes, quite easily.  That is much better than relying on labels to promote you (and they may not), or begging your local store to consign your album.  And if you do want to get picked up by a label, it is much easier to promote yourself and be heard because of the internet.

Lastly, songwriters are doing just fine.  Radio listening has not fallen, and more songs are being played in more places every day, resulting in royalties.

As far as the free speech stuff, that still doesn't address my point.  That type of "illegal" speech is outlawed in "real" life and on the internet.  Whether Hilton prints it or the Enquirer, it doesn't matter.  But that type of speech doesn't exist purely on the internet, and the internet isn't purely made up of that type of speech--much like "real" life.  So what makes the internet crap, and other types of interaction not?

[Shangri]

He didn't say "The internet is all crap". The way they entitled this is an example of what he was actually saying.

Thanks for the download Tyrant

[Slim Jim]

The internet is a good thing. Many of the people that use it are not. This reflects on our society, not the internet. It is our own personal choice to either listen/ignore them and how we use the internet. It's the parent's responsibility to make sure their kids use the internet safely. Kids sexting is the result of parents buying kids cell phones when they're ten years old and then allowing them to use them 24/7. What the hell does a ten year old kid need to be on a cell phone all day for ... or the internet for that matter? Limit their usage until they're 18. Facebook is a good concept, but people abuse it. It comes down to common sense and personal responsibility ... something people are lacking these days. That's not the internet's fault.

As far as the music issue ... musicians were performers before the greedy record labels came to life, making a living from their live performances, and they will continue to be performers after the labels are gone. The internet, to our benefit but the detriment of the greedy labels, will replace almost all of the traditional mediums. This most likely will include music, books, movies, etc. It's happening.

This will continue to happen unless the government, mistakenly and tragically, tries to barge in and save the corporations (which are in bed with the gov't) at the expense of us, the people. It's happened for other industries. The greedy corporation that milks the people and takes capitalism to the very edge is the real problem. The internet is the great equalizer. Of course, to you, the internet may mean something else. That's the beauty of it. It's like real life, you can choice to use it for millions of different reasons.

[lovemachine97]

The internet is a good thing. Many of the people that use it are not. This reflects on our society, not the internet. It is our own personal choice to either listen/ignore them and how we use the internet. It's the parent's responsibility to make sure their kids use the internet safely. Kids sexting is the result of parents buying kids cell phones when they're ten years old and then allowing them to use them 24/7. What the hell does a ten year old kid need to be on a cell phone all day for ... or the internet for that matter? Limit their usage until they're 18. Facebook is a good concept, but people abuse it. It comes down to common sense and personal responsibility ... something people are lacking these days. That's not the internet's fault.

As far as the music issue ... musicians were performers before the greedy record labels came to life, making a living from their live performances, and they will continue to be performers after the labels are gone. The internet, to our benefit but the detriment of the greedy labels, will replace almost all of the traditional mediums. This most likely will include music, books, movies, etc. It's happening.

This will continue to happen unless the government, mistakenly and tragically, tries to barge in and save the corporations (which are in bed with the gov't) at the expense of us, the people. It's happened for other industries. The greedy corporation that milks the people and takes capitalism to the very edge is the real problem. The internet is the great equalizer. Of course, to you, the internet may mean something else. That's the beauty of it. It's like real life, you can choice to use it for millions of different reasons.

Thank you; I agree almost 100%

I would let my child have a cell phone.  The sexting possibility is a real one, but I would much rather work harder as a parent to help my child understand the consequences than have my child in a situation where there is an emergency and they don't have a phone to use.  This includes kidnapping attempts, getting hurt, school shootings, etc.

If I were a parent, I would be lobbying cell companies to offer a parental cell agreement where the parents' cells/email are notified when the child makes a call and who they make it to, as well as who and what they are texting during the day.  That is well within parents' rights and would nip all of that nonsense in the bud without governmental intervention.