In article ,
hank alrich wrote:

Contracts are often signed in the former state and by the latter era the
artist you seek to hold responsible for the actions of a corporation who
long ago bought out the original record company's library has little to
no control over product releases.

Of course, I understand that. But it would help matters enourmously if
more artists would be more outspoken about their views. For instance,
an artist could come out publicly and give a dissenting opinion... Ian
Anderson could be lurking here, or his producer, let's say... If I
heard from the horse's mouth whether or not the artist agrees with the
way his works are being distributed, it would dramatically affect my
opinion on the matter.

I know where Courtney Love stands on these issues, I just wish that
artists I *liked* would be as open and forward like she. I know where
Metallica stands (they pretty much assume that anyone listening to their
music is a thief at heart.) I know a few others who were already
disgusted with the idea of surrendering their rights to an A&R agent
in the first place and started out on their own terms (only one really
successful example, Rockin Babe records, though.)

I know where I stand for my own work, but it's just too bad I don't
have any real talent, since it's meaningless. But I'm sure I'd choose
to do without commercial success if it meant surrendering my
distribution rights to anyone, in any way shape or form. But I'm not
normal. Likewise, I'd be homeless before I'd sign up with a homeowner's
association.

I don't think anyone should ever give up any rights whatsoever, and if
they do, assuming the individual is literate and of a sound mind when
they do, I feel justified in holding them responsible for the
consequences of their own actions. In this case, the effect at the end
of the day is that I do not purchase a copy of a certain album.
Unfortunate that the album happens to be a candidate for my list of 100
essential albums, or that it's by an artist who is in my top 10 acts of
all time. It's not MY fault, and it's not totally EMI's fault. The
artist shares responsibility, and I'd like to read in an interview that
the artist doesn't like it one bit, doesn't think you should buy that
version of the record, etc. I'd like to believe that the artists
considers the defective EMI version in the same context as the cassette
tape version from Saudi Arabia. (I don't know if those are as common as
they used to be).

What I don't want to hear is that the artist is happy as a clam that
there's this crappy version of the record for sale out there. If they
*know* what's going on and they *approve* of it, well, there goes my
business, and you won't be getting my $300.00 when you play at Caesar's
Palace either, get it?

I really wish I could hear from these artists that they don't like what
EMI done to their song. From where I sit, it looks like just about
every one of them thinks the whole game is just hunky dory.