Eagles & YouTube etc

[VAisForEagleLovers]

TBF, obviously I can't speak for others. I will say that I have an 'issue' with live music in general. It's one of the reasons I love the Eagles. I don't need perfect, but I refuse to pay good money to hear notes off key or someone murdering their own songs worse than I do in the shower. So you can just imagine what I think of the poor quality videos.

I did post the HC video on FB, the one where you can see me standing. For my friends that keep asking me why I pay so much money for front row tickets. I watched and listened to it once, then played it again ON MUTE in order to get the screen capture that I posted. I did watch part of the Long Run video that was from the side, and unfortunately, now my memories of that song are of seeing him from the side instead of him standing right in front of me. So I didn't watch any more of any of them.

I watched one of the videos from Glenn's show in DC, and I watch videos posted by Jack Tempchin and of course the 'official' ones pushed out by Glenn and Joe (and other artists). Other than that, I can honestly say I haven't watched videos posted here or on YouTube. Many have commented they are shocked I haven't seen a lot of the bootleg concerts before, but this is why. I do feel it's wrong, but mostly, I'll be honest, it's the quality issue and it really is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me. When I'm 95 and can barely remember my own name, I don't want my memories of this great band to be shaky distant video in mono instead of stereo.

There's a saying among performers of all types, not just musicians, that a friend of mine reminded me of last night. 'Do not work for free under the guise of good exposure. It's bad exposure. If you don't value your own work, no one else will either.' If today's process for musicians means that in order to be successful they need to give their stuff out for free on YouTube and such sites, then the process is broken and needs to be fixed. I think this is the point Don and the others are trying to make, although it's not like we've had a conversation about it

ETA: I forgot that I shared the 9/11 video with newclips of Hole In The World yesterday.

[TimothyBFan]

Thanks for the answer VA!

I watched and listened to it once, then played it again ON MUTE in order to get the screen capture that I posted.

Now doesn't this open a whole new can of worms?

[Topkat]

WOW!!! JUST WOW!!!!!

Some thoughts as I read this thread....

I also wanted to ask those that feel it's just wrong to do this since it's a violation, etc..., how often do you watch these videos and or repost them to this board or FB? Let's face it, everyone here has expressed how we can't wait to see pictures, we can't wait to see videos, etc... after a concert. Many of us scour YouTube as soon as there's been a show, trying to find them. Does that make all of us wrong in doing so?

Another thought I had regarding the legislation changes, attorneys being involved, etc.... How much time and money is being taken by these kind of things when, in my opinion, there are so many more important and pressing issues that should be taken care of by legislators. This subject seems a bit petty when you put it all into perspective. Again, just my opinion.

Let's face facts here. WE HAVE ALL WATCHED or POSTED videos of the Eagles from YouTube, so whether it's once or 100 times, it's still in violation of the copyright, & considered "Stealing". How harmful is this really to the artist? Even if the video is poor quality, I think people know a high quality video from a poor one. Some of them are actually good, not all, but some. Is a poor quality video going to damage the reputation of the Eagles?? I think not.

I loved seeing some of the AC show on video, even if it wasn't great quality. I can't remember the show later on. I know it was so much better than that video, but it doesn't really matter to me. It's nice to have the memory recorded. My brain can't recall a show I have seen years later.

According to some article written about the richest drummers, Don Henley is worth $300 Million dollars, so he doesn't seem to be hurting any for this. I would think he would have something better to do with his time & money than make a huge issue over this. In the grand scheme of things, YES, IT"S VERY PETTY!

[sodascouts]

There's a saying among performers of all types, not just musicians, that a friend of mine reminded me of last night. 'Do not work for free under the guise of good exposure. It's bad exposure. If you don't value your own work, no one else will either.' If today's process for musicians means that in order to be successful they need to give their stuff out for free on YouTube and such sites, then the process is broken and needs to be fixed.

Tell that to Justin Bieber. He sang for free and got a multi-million dollar contract.

How is a process "broken" if it works?

There are others are well.

Journey found their lead singer Arnel Pineda through YouTube. He was on his own, forced to make his own way after his mother died and his father was bankrupted paying her medical bills. Journey saw his copyright-violating videos and realized how well he could sing. Now Pineda will never have to worry about paying medical bills again. (See his story here.)

Here's some more:
15 Aspiring Musicians Who Found Fame Through YouTube

These are real, flesh-and-blood people whose lives have been made better. Look in their faces and declare that they'd be better off without YouTube. It's simply not true.

BTW, there have been musicians playing for free in order to get exposure for a heck of a long time. This didn't start with YouTube. Here's a few examples:

10 Musicians Who Got Their Start Playing in the Streets

YouTube simply enables those people to reach a LOT bigger audience... as in world-wide.

In other words, YouTube took what was already happening - musicians playing free for exposure - and made it a lot more effective. That's supposed to be a bad thing?

[Topkat]

SODA, thank you for that! I have been saying all along that this is FREE ADVERTISING & FREE PUBLICITY for any artist! Yes, to a world wide audience!
Where else do you get that?? Getting a manager & to promote an artist cost a fortune!

[VAisForEagleLovers]

According to some article written about the richest drummers, Don Henley is worth $300 Million dollars, so he doesn't seem to be hurting any for this. I would think he would have something better to do with his time & money than make a huge issue over this. In the grand scheme of things, YES, IT"S VERY PETTY!

So it's OK to shoplift from Macy's but not the little Ma and Pa shop down the road because Macy's has a lot of money? I'm sorry, I don't get it from people on this board but I do from friends, we all like music a little too much to take this tack, but there are many more who don't, and they will not buy a CD or MP3 if they can listen to it on YouTube for free. Why buy the cow if the milk is free? And what if Don is fighting for the up and coming musician that has a net worth of $1500 and not millions?

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Tell that to Justin Bieber. He sang for free and got a multi-million dollar contract.

How is a process "broken" if it works?

There are others are well.

Journey found their lead singer Arnel Pineda through YouTube. He was on his own, forced to make his own way after his mother died and his father was bankrupted paying her medical bills. Journey saw his copyright-violating videos and realized how well he could sing. Now Pineda will never have to worry about paying medical bills again. (See his story here.)

Here's some more:
15 Aspiring Musicians Who Found Fame Through YouTube

These are real, flesh-and-blood people whose lives have been made better. Look in their faces and declare that they'd be better off without YouTube. It's simply not true.

BTW, there have been musicians playing for free in order to get exposure for a heck of a long time. This didn't start with YouTube. Here's a few examples:

10 Musicians Who Got Their Start Playing in the Streets

YouTube simply enables those people to reach a LOT bigger audience... as in world-wide.

In other words, YouTube took what was already happening - musicians playing free for exposure - and made it a lot more effective. That's supposed to be a bad thing?

OK. I'll stop. You all win. Five people out of thousands of struggling musicians is a success story.

[sodascouts]

I think you mean 16, but at any rate, they were put forward as examples of a larger phenomenon, not as an exhaustive list. You know that.

I think examples and evidence are important to an informed argument. I'd like some examples of artists who can PROVE that they have been hurt by YouTube. Not hypothetically, not speculatively, not theoretically. I'd like to see some hard, direct proof.

Incidentally, the percentage of success stories to those attempting to break into the music business has ALWAYS been low. Some people act like before YouTube, all a talented person had to do was show up to a record company office and fortune and fame would follow. There were tons of people who the record companies turned away. Now those people have alternative means to reach the masses and are no longer blocked by a corporate "gatekeeper." Again, that's a bad thing?

[Topkat]

So it's OK to shoplift from Macy's but not the little Ma and Pa shop down the road because Macy's has a lot of money? I'm sorry, I don't get it from people on this board but I do from friends, we all like music a little too much to take this tack, but there are many more who don't, and they will not buy a CD or MP3 if they can listen to it on YouTube for free. Why buy the cow if the milk is free? And what if Don is fighting for the up and coming musician that has a net worth of $1500 and not millions?

VA, I'm not saying it's OK to steal. Besides, you are never going to get an entire CD on YouTube. If you get 1 or 2 songs off an album, that's a lot. All I'm saying is that any musician on YouTube is getting Free World Wide Exposure! That is certainly worth something, isn't it? Many people discover an artist on YouTube, & then continue to support them by going to see a live performance or buying something! I don't know anyone that gets ALL their music from YouTube, the quality is just not as good. As Soda pointed out......Many people have been discovered on YouTube & have gone on to make millions.

[sodascouts]

SODA, thank you for that! I have been saying all along that this is FREE ADVERTISING & FREE PUBLICITY for any artist! Yes, to a world wide audience!
Where else do you get that?? Getting a manager & to promote an artist cost a fortune!

Not to mention that even if you were one of the very few to get a record contract, the corporation would do their best to screw you over.

Don Henley initially formed the Recording Arts Coalition to address the fact that the record companies were ripping musicians off. These companies weren't the musician's kindly friends, always looking out to help them! Even Asylum, which was started under the concept that everyone at the top was the musician's buddy, got to a point where Don Henley was suing its founder David Geffen in order to get out of his contract. (See that story here).

I can't summon up too many tears that the reign of the record company is threatened by sites like YouTube.

The Eagles are successful enough to eliminate the record company and form their own. They've largely cut them out of the profits. YouTube does the same for the people who can't afford to buy their way out, or were never let in at all.