greenlinnet

[Wizzer]

Green Linnet is gone for all practical purposes. The courts will decide that when the case come to a close, and that must be getting closer since the prices they are offering are only there to clear out inventory. Let hope that the artist themselves take over the equipment and operate the business in a fair and open manner. The could not do any worse that has been done already.

We should be only mildly concerned about Green Linnets and other recording companies future but greatly concerned about the artist that will eventually be forced to settle for pennies on the dollar. It is the years of lost payments, the money they were banking on for their continued growth, children's college funs, and on and on.
How will they cope will this deception by Green Linnet, will it curtail their carriers or force them to travel a different path.
The future of the music is not in the recording companies but in the artist and their talent.
We need to foster that talent and stand up for those with the gifts to make us all so happy. We need to stand being those individuals working to perfect their art and putting aside the easy life of home and the 9 to 5 job to seek their future on the road.

And as a closing note I have leaned my nephew will be flying out of Iraq on the 17 of March. This will truly be a gooood St Patrick Day.

[Wombat]

We should be only mildly concerned about Green Linnets and other recording companies future but greatly concerned about the artist that will eventually be forced to settle for pennies on the dollar. It is the years of lost payments, the money they were banking on for their continued growth, children's college funs, and on and on.

I share your concern about the artists but don't see why you are down on 'other record companies.' There are some straight dealers out there and people who have devoted their lives to bringing us music we would never have heard without their dedication. Think of Chris Strachwitz and Arhoolie Records. It's curious how much American music owes to immigrants like Strachwitz who discovered and created markets for musics nobody else would touch. So let's have some fairness and honesty please. Artists for the most part need record companies to make profits in order to get adequate exposure. And some independant record companies marketing minority interest music are virtually charities. It's absurd to talk as though they were all like the majors.

[bradhurley]

Green Linnet is gone for all practical purposes.

You know, I've never seen this confirmed in print and there's no mention of it on GL's web site so it may not be true, but I heard last year from a reliable source that Green Linnet has been sold to a large UK-based record company and is now a subsidiary rather than an independent label. The person who told me about it has been touring and recording with a GL recording artist for the past few years so I assume it's accurate info...has anyone else heard about this? He described it as a bailout deal, as GL was in dire financial straits. He told me about it almost a year ago; I don't know if it was a done deal or if it fell through.

Oh, and I'll second what Wombat said. There are some great record companies out there -- I've heard good things about Compass Records, and a friend of mine in the record business says that Putumayo is famous for its fair and ethical dealings with artists.

[Switchfoot]

Pardon me for being dense if this was already mentioned, but I'm curious.
Lunasa (and many many other irish bands I love, flook etc.) never really make it as far as California in their tours, so buying their cd's at concerts is kinda out of the question.

So, what will put the most money in the pockets of the musicians?

[Bloomfield]

Buy off their webpage, I'd say.

www.lunasa.ie

[Brian Lee]

I dunno...

I haven't seen anyone holding a gun to ANY artists head saying "You'll sign with Green Linnet forever or else!" When they signed, each band that is with GL now must have thought there were some pretty big benefits. That was their choice to venture down the commercial road after all. Anyway, there are TONS of recording labels world-wide and if all the bands/musician needs is exposure and a viable outlet to retail their wares I can hardly think that Green Linnet is the end all, be all of the Celtic music industry.

After all, it IS an industry filled with good and bad business ethics. so when the contracts are over and the litigations settle in the dust, the artists will be free to choose for themselves what they see as the best way to move on from here.

I can promise you this - Amar isn't going to single handedly bankrupt anyone - artist, label or otherwise. If he finds a venue to purchase inexpensive CDs of music from artists he likes, that's perfectly fine for him to do and none of us has a right to bash him for his choice. You can of course always choose not to yourself and even post your own reasonings if you feel you need to. Comparisons to buying his stolen car are silly at best - even though the intent of the simile is clear.

I think it's best to reserve judgement ourselves until the courts have worked on it a bit more. All this does for me is take the focus off the musicians and their music anyway.

[Bloomfield]

I haven't seen anyone holding a gun to ANY artists head saying "You'll sign with Green Linnet forever or else!" When they signed, each band that is with GL now must have thought there were some pretty big benefits. That was their choice to venture down the commercial road after all. Anyway, there are TONS of recording labels world-wide and if all the bands/musician needs is exposure and a viable outlet to retail their wares I can hardly think that Green Linnet is the end all, be all of the Celtic music industry.

After all, it IS an industry filled with good and bad business ethics. so when the contracts are over and the litigations settle in the dust, the artists will be free to choose for themselves what they see as the best way to move on from here.
.

So let me get this straight: Green Linnet and the artists signed contracts under which Green Linnet would pay them royalties or whatever, now you are saying it's okay for Green Linnet not to honor that contract and pay, because no one forced the artists to sign with Green Linnet and because there must have been "some pretty big benefits" to the artists (you mean, beside getting their share of the money from the sale of their music)?

I think it's a great comfort to anyone, after they've been screwed and cheated out of the fruits of their labor, to remind themselves that it's an "industry filled with good and bad business ethics" and that they are free to choose the best way to move on from here. Bah, these mean-spirited and litigious artists!

I dunno...

I'll say.

[Brian Lee]

Nope. Once again Bloomie you're not seeing the point here. If you play music and you want to "make it big" the best way for most to do so is to sign with a major label. I'm not one for seeing anyone get screwed by underhanded businesses or people, but it happens daily in this wonderful country of ours (and all over the world). It's happened to me more than once - just as I assume it has likely even happened to you. I don't like it, and I'll guess you don't either. That's not what this is about.

The artists didn't know anything about the way this current situation would end up or they wouldn't have signed in the first place. Yet, unless they are completely blind to the industry and also completely unaware that this sort of thing has happened for hundreds of years, they should be aware of the possible risks associated with signing.

One never wishes to be screwed, but there are always people ready to oblige nevertheless. I have to imagine that when GL opened its doors for the first time, they weren't heart set out on de-frauding as many Itrad artists as they could find. Bad business practice is a curse suffered by many not just in the recording industry. Unfortunately you can't always tell before you sign what the future holds...

[Bloomfield]

Once again Bloomie you're not seeing the point here.

True enough. I don't see a point in what you are saying.

[U2]

Dar Abbey (Bloomie):
I have a friend who's taking a jet airplane to a large city to protest against global warming. Should I point out the dichotomy?, or just let him make his own decisions and hope he won't start examining everything I do?

Signed,
Drawn to OT

edited to add smiley face in case it comes over as too serious. Seriously.

[sturob]

Now, the lawsuit and whatnot issue is interesting.

Is Green Linnet being sued in criminal or civil court? If it's in civil court, it's hard to make the "innocent until proven guilty" argument since that's not what's at stake. If they're criminal proceedings, that's something else.

But the other point is well-taken as well . . . if they're just charging $4/CD, you could send $8 or $10 to the artist and they'd make more than the usual royalty on the sale.

Would anyone really do that?

Stuart

[LeeMarsh]

A couple of thoughts.

Compilations: For me they are a way to search through a number of related artist in a genre for styles I like. A couple of GL's compilations have lead to my buying multiple CD's by the artist I've discovered. Since the litigation, I've usually loocked for CD's directly from an artist's site, but then I tended to do that anyway. For example, I first heard lunasa from a compilation. I then bough two of their CD's from thier sight for myself and another 2 as gifts.

Record Companies VS. Artists. I don't know what happened between GL and it's artists. In general I know that there have been record companies that have frauded artists AND there have been artist that have frauded the record companies. The fact that its in litigation means there are two sides, it is my hope they can come up with an equitable settlement to both sides. The record company can get a return on its money spent establishing the label, marketing itself and the artist, establishing and maintaining relations with distributor and retailers. Like wise the artist should get a reasonable return on his work and recieve royalities agreed to.

In recent times, the value of compilations has declined because RealAudio and MP3 samples on internet sites make it so much easier to sample and artist's production. Even record stores now have listening stations that let one sample most of the records they have for sale. For example, I find I buy from Borders more because they set up these listening stations so I could easily sample a CD before buying. They tend to charge a little more for the CD, but I still save money. Prior to the listening stations, I'd estimate that a third of the records or CD's I'd buy where listened to once, and never again. I'd then grimace of the waist of money. Prior to listening stations (in store or internet) the only way to sample a number of interesting artists were compilations. I think GL originally contributed greatly to the genre and therefor to regular album sales through these. I don't think this would excuse them from not paying royalities they agreed to, but the accounting expense of splitting royalties amoung so many artists and groups, with so many different thematic compilations might make compilations cost prohibitive. Today since a lot of this can be done with relative ease using automation, software, etc. it wouldn't be an issue. If GL lagged behind this technology they would end up with a lot of dissatisfied artists.

Again I am NOT defending anything GL's has done. I am only saying that there is a difference between criminal fraud and between an initially good business arrangement being over taken by technology or changes in the marketplace. If the later happens both the business and artists are dissatisfied. They may not be able to come to an agreement to share the loss of expected returns without mediation.

Because I don't know all the facts, I'm glad to hear that the courts are being used to help resolve the problems. I wish the courts weren't necessary, because both parties will lose addition resources because they need to pay for the cost of mediation. I think both parties are going to be dissatisfied with the final settlement, its just that there will be some balance to their levels of dissatifaction.

Finally, I'd like to say I support the artists in their actions toward GL. I doubt that they will get what they want, but over the long run it will further define better business practices for both sides. It may also return the control of assets (masters, copyrights, publishing rights, etc) to the artist who can then search for a more modern business with the flexibility to better represent them through technological and market changes. Another possiblity would be to create an overwhelming financial incentive for GL to make the changes it needs to accomodate the artists through the same changing environment.

My hope is that both become free to get back to the heart of the business .... enjoying music. I also hope that we can honor each other opinions so each of us is free the get back to the heart of this community which is how you ...

[blackhawk]

The more likely scenario I think is if the artist win their suit, Green Linnet will go bankrupt. Realistically therefore the artists will use the courts to force Green Linnet to do an accounting. That will show that they are owed lots of money and that Greenlinnet doesn't have it and won't have it since the "Celtic" boom has levelled off and you're not going to pay off debt by selling your stuff for $4/CD.

So, the artist will settle for what they can get, including the rights to their recordings. That will mean the end for Green Linnet as we know it, and it will probably mean that many of the CDs (like Cherish the Ladies) will be distributed over the net or other sub-optimal channels and stand in danger of going out of print.

About Wizzer's indignation: I can understand it and share it some extent. Problem is you are harming the artists as well as Green Linnet by not buying the CDs (even when they get no commission, there is an interest in having the stuff out there, listened to). The moral thing I guess would be to buy from Green Linnet at $4/CD and to send some money for each CD directly to the artists.

Ah, so we are helping the artists by helping Green Linnet screw the artists.

I haven't seen anyone holding a gun to ANY artists head saying "You'll sign with Green Linnet forever or else!" When they signed, each band that is with GL now must have thought there were some pretty big benefits. That was their choice to venture down the commercial road after all. Anyway, there are TONS of recording labels world-wide and if all the bands/musician needs is exposure and a viable outlet to retail their wares I can hardly think that Green Linnet is the end all, be all of the Celtic music industry.

After all, it IS an industry filled with good and bad business ethics. so when the contracts are over and the litigations settle in the dust, the artists will be free to choose for themselves what they see as the best way to move on from here.
.

So let me get this straight: Green Linnet and the artists signed contracts under which Green Linnet would pay them royalties or whatever, now you are saying it's okay for Green Linnet not to honor that contract and pay, because no one forced the artists to sign with Green Linnet and because there must have been "some pretty big benefits" to the artists (you mean, beside getting their share of the money from the sale of their music)?

I think it's a great comfort to anyone, after they've been screwed and cheated out of the fruits of their labor, to remind themselves that it's an "industry filled with good and bad business ethics" and that they are free to choose the best way to move on from here. Bah, these mean-spirited and litigious artists!

Ah, no we're not helping the artists by helping GL screw them. Or, you're a very confused person.

[Wombat]

Now, the lawsuit and whatnot issue is interesting.

Is Green Linnet being sued in criminal or civil court? If it's in civil court, it's hard to make the "innocent until proven guilty" argument since that's not what's at stake. If they're criminal proceedings, that's something else.

Good point Stuart. I think it does make a difference. But I think the full phrase is 'presumed innocent until proven guilty.' This is not so much an instruction about how we are to think but about how we are to treat a person in public, even though it sounds like a directive about what we are to believe. Obviously the prosecuting lawyers and criminologists won't be presuming innocence, except to the extent of being cautious in making public statements. You can do this by just saying exactly what you want to say and inserting 'alleged' into your statement at every point where you want to make an accusation. The slogan is also misleading in that we are not really expected to presume innocence so much as to refrain from openly presuming guilt.

But the other point is well-taken as well . . . if they're just charging $4/CD, you could send $8 or $10 to the artist and they'd make more than the usual royalty on the sale.

Would anyone really do that?

Stuart

Yes they would. Some of us have promoted CDs for charity and will do so again. We ourselves pay the full price, even though we could probably get them cheaper. Furthermore, we set what we think is a fair price, even though we could probably set it lower. That said, am I boycotting Green Linnet? Not yet, but I'm more cautious than I used to be. If I could get the CD some other way that would result in money in hand for the artist, I'd do so. But what if the artists lose in court, and not on a technicality?

I think a lot of things are in play here and it is hard to be consistent, cover for everything, and still buy the music. We make a judgment about who we think is telling the truth, on the balance of the probabilities, given the scrappy evidence we have available. Then we act. One could appeal to a reasonable principle to justify just about any policy here.

Just one other thing that isn't a comment on Stuart's post but is important here. Once every minor label, ie every independent, openly ripped off every artist on their roster. To be recorded at all, you needed not only to accept an up front payment in lieu of royalties but also to sign over publishing and composing rights to the record company boss. Ever wondered who 'Malone' was on all those Bobby Bland records? It was the Duke records boss, Don Robey, who wouldn't have known an original melody if it jumped up and bit him. The trade off was this. If you had a string of hit records, your appearance fee skyrocketed and you were booked out year round. Now, if your manager and booking agent were honest, you might make some money. None of this is meant to excuse Green Linnet if they are guilty as alleged.

[Bloomfield]

Ah, no we're not helping the artists by helping GL screw them. Or, you're a very confused person.

I am the last to deny that I am confused.

1. I am not as ready to blame someone who buys a Green Linnet CD, even though they are aware of the lawsuit and the fraud, because a boycott of Green Linnet also (to some extent) hurts the artist.

2. On the other hand I find it cynical and offensive to somehow condone or downplay the way Green Linnet has been (allegedly) stealing from the artist, simply because Green Linnet may not be the only one or because the artists "have decided to go commercial".

Note to other confused souls: Paragraph no 1 above refers to the conduct of someone who buys a CD from Green Linnet. Paragraph no 2 above refers to the conduct of Green Linnet. Paragraph no 3 above refers to the quality of certain posts in this thread, and has been deleted.