Two rock stars form nonlabel alliance | iLounge News


Two rock stars form nonlabel alliance

“Rock veterans Peter Gabriel and Brian Eno are starting a provocative new musicians’ alliance that would let artists sell their music online instead of only through record labels. [...]

By removing record labels from the equation, artists can set their own prices and set their own agendas, said the two independent musicians, who hope to launch the online alliance within a month.”

Related Stories



it’s about time!

Posted by malcanta in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 8:38 AM (CST)


oh man, that’s great!
I’ll start buying from them asap!

Posted by Incitatus in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 8:46 AM (CST)


Peter Gabriel is all about innovating…here he goes again. Awesome.

Posted by RegalBegal in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 8:47 AM (CST)


Nice….lets hope this is the beginning of online music innovation and the end of the dinosaur like attempts of some organisations to continue lining their pockets at everyone’s expense.

And yes, I bought all the music I own and all the music that I’ve dowloaded to my iPod!

Posted by Solomalee in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 8:52 AM (CST)


It’s good news for online music distribution in general, but not so good for the iPod and iTunes because (I assume) this alliance will be based around Gabriel’s OD2, which uses Windows Media Audio (AFAIK).

Posted by Jon Eccleston in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 8:59 AM (CST)


and LO…. yet another bell was rung in the RIAA’s death knell… let all true lover’s of music rejoice!

Posted by IDSmoker in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 9:18 AM (CST)


A great idea - finally someone is standing up to the RIAA.  They should have known that charging $20.00 for a new album would one day come back and bite them in the arse.  Suing there fans isnt makin me feel sorry for downloading either.

Just wish Apple would start allowing unsigned bands to upload there albums to iTMS.  Lets just eliminate the RIAA completley.

Posted by Sunny in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 9:34 AM (CST)



Deja Vu.  Sounds like all over again or or or…

Not much new here.

Posted by The Raven in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 9:38 AM (CST)


What is everyone’s beef against the RIAA? They are not the money-grubbing capitalist pigs everyone makes them out to be. Are CDs to expensive? Absolutely! But look at the expenses that the record companies go through to sell those $20 CDs. All the marketing, radio promotions, concerts, TV spots, and distribution costs a LOT of money. They promote the artists that are signed with them, and they make a lot of money for some of their investment, and lose a lot on others. This is a business relationship, plain and simple. There is NO WAY the most popular artists in history would have been nearly as popular without the marketing and promotions of the record company. These are tremendous expenses, for which artists are richly rewarded for the efforts they put forth. There are very few artists that would turn down a record contract with any company in the RIAA.

There is a wealth of talent and a ton of musicians all over the world that none of us have heard of. The purpose of the record companies is to promote the artists that they think can go the distance. The idea that “good music can sell itself” can only go so far. All of this chatter about the iTMS having some dramatic impact on the artists that people listen to is WAY overblown. There are some that will seek out independents, like myself, but most will continue to buy the music they hear on the radio, or from their friends. I do hope that the single-buying mentality generated by the iTMS will spread the wealth a little more evenly. Only time will tell, but lay off the whole RIAA bashing, would ya?

Posted by Bob in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 10:02 AM (CST)


bob is obviously new here.

Posted by msherman in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 10:32 AM (CST)


let them sell their own concert tickets too!  Way to ‘break out’ Peter.

Posted by live-music-pod in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 10:45 AM (CST)


I believe the terms is “selling out”.

Posted by jay in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 10:55 AM (CST)


The Raven, you obviously haven’t been paying much attention to the recent business practices and strong-arm tactics of the RIAA.  For example, many of the costs and fees record companies claim justify the high prices of CDs are actually charges to themselves.  For example, if I own a studio, I could charge myself $25,000 to use the studio for a week.  Obvuiously, I’m not really paying anyone, but I can sure as hell cite it as a cost and make a check out to myself which goes back into my bank account.  Mpst record companies follow similar schemes and end up charging bands for what basically amounts to services that cost the RIA nothing.  I don’t have time to get into all the problems with the music industry, but there are things called search engines and the public libraries that can help educate you on why consumers AND ARTISTS hate the record companies and RIAA.

Posted by wyvern in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 10:56 AM (CST)


I think this is interesting…. although I wouldn’t say so quickly that they are being innovative, as Public Enemy and Prince beat them to leaving the majors years ago… but I think that this just shows that more artists are getting tired of the way labels are running things. I have feeling that this is an important step in showing other major artists that they need to take control of their careers.

Posted by mGee in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 11:11 AM (CST)


bob…man…the statement about musicians not being nearly as popular IS true when you talk in relative terms…of course if I have a bunch of publicity and you have none, I might be more popular…but if neither of us have any at all, it will actually be up to our music to do the advertising for us…which, in my opinion, is much better than some stupid @ss publicity stunt.

Posted by No. 288 in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 11:13 AM (CST)


And who has time to sift through all the junk?  I can hardly find time to go through my own 13G collection.  I can’t imagine listening to hours of music trying to find something good. 

The fact is, labels filter the mess, and for better or for worse, package and promote the artists they think have promise. 

Chances are, you would never have heard of Eno or Gabriel without the efforts of the labels.

Why do you think new bands/artist want to sign with a major label?  If they could afford to properly promote themselves, they would.  Fact is, they can’t, and the labels assume that cost and risk.

Posted by Albert in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 11:41 AM (CST)


i got news for you ....both these guys suck. therefore i dont care!!

Posted by Jaguares in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 11:50 AM (CST)


Wyvern, I respectfully disagree with you. Of course it costs the record company money to run the studio: anyone that owns a business knows the phenomenal amount of overhead that it takes for the building, the equipment, and the people that run it. Charging back $25,000 to itself is the only way they can justify the budget expenditure of the studio to begin with. It’s an intra-company expense, pure and simple, and goes on in businesses everywhere.

As for No. 288’s comment about the “music doing the advertising for us”, I’m afraid your totally and completely out of touch with reality. There have been independent artists for time eternal, making their own CDs and selling and promoting themselves to a, hopefully, growing audience.

Expanding the iTMS, or any other service for that matter, to the masses of people like these unknown independent artists isn’t so much going to raise the exposure of these artists to the level of the larger artists as so many people seem to expect, as much as it will lower the exposure of the community at large. All of a sudden, you go from 400,000 songs to 5 million+. Without publicity, how is ANYONE going to become more popular than anyone else? The music and talent will only take you so far. It can’t speak for itself unless you have an audience that hears it. Leveling the playing field will just create more and more starving musicians.

Posted by Bob in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 11:57 AM (CST)


There weren’t many people interested in music who hadn’t heard of Mozart in his time.

This way (without major record companies) the artists will have to earn their money by being good!! OMG!! wtf is good??!? they won’t have a few billions behind them in advertising campaigns marketed to hormone driven little suburban kids. Can you imagine ? no more B. Spears, 50 centS etc. like people!!

omg the bliss

Posted by Incitatus in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 1:16 PM (CST)


Bob, why should “anyone…become more popular than anyone else” ? I would’ve though it better if there was more equal spread of popularity between all musicians, rather than the sharp falloff that there is between a few dozen super-hyped acts and everyone else, it’s unfair and IMO a symptom of the over-commercialisation, to the detriment of both musicians and music fans.

Posted by pomegranate in Irvine, CA on January 27, 2004 at 2:45 PM (CST)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2018 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy