Metal Reviews

This text can be found at http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1148586

MUMBAI: "The changes in the music industry has not affected us adversely, because we always had a strong relationship with our fans," said lead vocalist of British heavy metal band 'Iron Maiden' Bruce Dickenson, who are here to open their world tour at the MMRDA Grounds, on Friday.

Dickenson said that being a live band, Iron Maiden has always had a direct and close relationship with their fans and have not been affected by the free downloads and MP3s that have bucked the global music industry.

"It would affect artists who have relationship with only their record labels and depend on record sales and not their fans. Two decades ago, the record companies had a monopoly over the music industry, but now there is more competition and democracy. May be, the music industry is heading back to the 20s and 30s, where music was played live without record companies," said Dickenson.

As for the bootleg recordings and merchandise of the band that are traded in the net, Dickenson said, "Again it depends on our relationship with our fans. We are aware that our unofficial recordings of our live shows are often downloaded on the net and some of them are pretty good."

"The fans also buy the official merchandise, which we make sure are quality stuff. However, what we do not believe is people who rip off our fans and the band with poor quality bootleg recordings and merchandise," said Dickenson.


So ... what do you think ?

I think Bruce is rich, so his opinion doesn't matter. Just like Radiohead or Trent Reznor releasing albums "for free." Ooh, very noble. Fuck off, rich man.

I have more respect for a band like Stuck Mojo who released their latest album for free a year before Radiohead did. Stuck Mojo can't necessarily afford that, but when nearly every deal they've signed has garnered them no money, with Century Media being one and owing them over $200,000, I think them doing it is far more respectable.

And I also think their opinion on the subject is far more valid than from someone who can still enjoy a high-end lifestyle because they were successful before illegal downloading and slumping record sales was a problem and downloading doesn't have a negative affect on their life.

Ok, kudos for Stuck Mojo, maybe even more than for Maiden, BUT ...

Bruce's point IS valid because they turned rich BECAUSE OF THE FANS. The same thing that protects them now is the same thing that got them rich in the first place. They didn't get rich because some record company made multi-million dollar advertising campaigns and tricked millions of people into buying Iron Maiden records. Maiden were NEVER a "trend". They are millionaires because they did QUALITY music and always had that special connection with the fans, as Bruce said. If file-sharing programs existed in the early 80's, Bruce would still be VERY VERY rich. Maybe not as much as he is, but still.

Kind of agree. Maiden, like many other metal bands receive and continue to receive very little or no radio play. Number Of The Beast was a huge success inspite of the lack of radio play. In the age of downloads, why would Maiden's A Matter Of Life And Death sell over a million copies, but better metal albums from lesser known bands sell less?

Maiden have always been a band that stuck very closely with their fans and also not giving in to trends and label's demands. I would think that their label listens to them instead of ordering them around. Just like the release of AMOLAD. The were asked to shorten their single that was due for the Top 40 airplay but Maiden refused to do so and didn't mind that the song could not be played.

Even if there are millions who download Maiden's songs, there would be twofolds more (at least) who would buy their album. So anyhow, Maiden doesn't lose much at all.

yes but Pasqua, these days it's harder to sell on quality alone.

You'll notice that Bruce was careful not to say anything negative there about people that download Iron Maiden albums, just that there's enough fans that buy for it not to matter. Meaning that he's not in favour of it, so really what's he said, he doesn't like low-quality live recordings being sold? Which band does? I bet if you asked him he would not be in favour of people downloading his albums.

Like Ken said, this doesn't mean anything. IM have been around since the early eighties, which is more than long enough to build up a loyal fanbase. I'm sure there was label marketing, and plenty of it along the way, and why not?

Any band that gets rich does it because 'fans' (short for fanatics, remember) are sucked in and buy their stuff, whether because the music's good or label efforts or whatever. Maiden is a recognised name, and it's as much because of their longetivity as anything else.

A million copies? Pffft! That album didn't sell a million copies. And even if it did, how many millions downloaded the album? Maiden has loyal fans, sure, but they started their career like 30 years before downloading was even thought of. If Maiden started today, Bruce would be singing a different tune.

Maiden became rich "because of the fans," yes. But if there was an option of downloading their albums for free back then, they wouldn't be rich today, that's for sure.

Yes they would. They would not get multi-miliionaires, but they WOULD get rich. I remember when I was a kid, LOTS of people copied cassetes over and over, trading stuff. Sure, it's not as big as downloading, but still, people HAD ways to get music for free.

My point in this discussion is ... what's the difference between Bruce's attitude ... and Elton John's attitude, Gene Simmons' attitude, guys who spend 90% of their time bashing on mp3 trading and saying it's destroying the music business. What is the difference between Maiden and Metallica, who spent years and years fighting Napster while at the same time they were releasing crap after crap. And yes, Elton John, Gene Simmons, they're all millionaires.

Makes sense to me. Even though album sales may be affected a band can make that up by selling merch and tickets to more fans that may not have given them a chance before because they weren't willing to pay for a CD.

Oh but if they're not willing to pay for a CD, they're not willing to pay for a concert though, right? I'd disagree. I've seen many a band in concert due to finding out about them by DLing their tunes out of interest from reading a review, and I usually buy merch and the CD's at some point anyway to support the band. I'm sure many do the same.

I can't say it's win win or anything... But what Bruce is saying makes sense.

He is after all, one of the brightest among the community, second to Dio

Not that its the same thing, but the bootleg trade was alive and much more well than it is right now back then, and many bands, including Maiden and Metallica, did support it- they didn't gain money from it, but it gained them more fans- kind of like downloading. Saying that "if there was an option of downloading their albums for free back then, they wouldn't be rich today, that's for sure" with certainty is complete bullshit by the way, and largely irrelevant even if it was true due to the overwhelming difference between the 80s music scene and the modern day. In any case, there are bands that do make millions even with downloading today. As for how much A Matter of Life and Death sold:



Even if it didn't sell a million copies, its pretty damn close. Note that its the first Maiden album to break the US top 10 despite the increase in downloading. Maybe this suggests that (gasp!) we shouldn't generalize about downloading, and, I don't know, have a serious discussion.

Stuck Mojo's opinion is obviously clouded by the fact that they got screwed over by record companies .

also there's bands who became rich "after illegal downloading" who are pro-downloading. i think Bruce has the right idea that record labels definitely aren't in control anymore

A band makes the majority of it's money touring anyway. Millions of people who show up to Maiden concerts can't really illegally download a ticket or illegally download merchandise. Sure, a few people can sneak in, and a few people can stuff shirts down their pants when the vendor isn't looking, but where an album's money is destributed to a whole bunch of sources (record companies getting the biggest slice of the pie), a live show gives the band the biggest opportunity to get money.

I agree with Bruce. Bands that want to make alot tour alot. Bands make less on album sales than on performing concerts and selling merch. I think bands who don't want to put in as much road work often use downloading as the latest excuse for not making alot of money.

Bands make money off of touring. The only people who get rich off of record sales are the labels. Getting 12 cents per band member, per copy doesn't make you a millionaire. Maiden is rich from being on the road for the majority of their existance, same with Metallica. Metallica wasn't making shit off of their album sales until they sued Elektra.

Take a look on, say, Kamelot.

Kamelot's a band that has been around for the same time as illegal downloads (1997, 1998). Do you think they're struggling to survive in music? Do you think they are very worried about their future as musicians? Are they almost washed away from music? I doubt it. I think they're rich. Of course, not as rich as Maiden was back in 1985 or as rich as Metallica got in 1991, but still. Kamelot can fill any 5 thousand people venue wherever they go. Kamelot has a very established fanbase, and LOTS of people knew their music through mp3 sharing. That all happened because they play QUALITY music.

So ... they're rich, they have good CD and DVD sales ... what's to complain about? Isn't that the purpose of being a musician? Having people love your work, and then get some money out of it?

Are they really that succesful? Even folks who are into metal here don't know of the band.

Yeah they're on MTV2. I'd say they're doing alright.

This is what I find so funny. I read this today on Blabbermouth from Gene Simmons of KISS:

On why there is no new KISS album:

"There's no new KISS material because there's no record industry.

"Any band who tries to do new material is trying to climb a slippery mountain. Every day record companies are folding. It'd be nice to have new KISS songs, but what's the business model? Do you just put songs on the Internet for free? Then what?''

On people who download music illegally:

"They're crooks. I would have sued the very first one and the very last one. As soon as you take somebody's property, that's stealing. People say to me 'You're rich, you have enough money'. It's actually not for anyone to decide that. I'll let you know when I'm too rich. The last time I checked, what we do isn't called charity, it's called the music business.

"Here we are today with exactly what I said would happen happening. The very same people that love the music the most have slit its throat and they're surprised it's dying. 'How come my new band can't get a shot?' 'Cos you killed it, bitch.

"Every day college kids who probably love music more than anybody are the same people slashing the record industry's throat by file sharing and downloading. It's the saddest thing for new bands. Doesn't affect me or KISS. We can continue to play stadiums and do very well, and we release DVDs.

"But there isn't a chance for a new band to become the next BEATLES or KISS because there isn't the infrastructure to do it."



How is it that two different guys from two of the world's biggest bands are so diametrically opposed on the same issue?