6 Reasons To Dislike Coldplay

The New Yorker rarely has articles like this.  When I saw the title Why I Don't Like Coldplay, I thought for sure it would be because they are so good, because the lead singer is married to Gwyneth, etc.  I was surprised to see a true-to-title analysis by Sasha Frere-Jones. 

He makes his case in a 6 point investigation. It's worth a read.  My favorite point is #5:

Seven out of ten times, Coldplay sound almost exactly like U2—the U2 that exists now, not the wiry, feral U2 of 1980 (which would be a decent idea). U2 have not broken up. This is inefficient. Coldplay should consider copying Big Star or The Monkees.

The songwriting doesn't really get much better than Big Star or the Monkees.  It's a sound suggestion. 

Lead singer Chris Martin seems to be a likable guy. He came across that way in a CBS Sunday Morning interview.  It just seems like the band is missing something.  Maybe Sasha is right, they need a ride on the Last Train To Clarksville. 

U2 from Apples to Blackberrys

U2 has just switched fruits. From a band that so clearly aligned themselves with Apple (ads, a personalized iPod), they are now part of the Blackberry machine. The first teaser ad has appeared. Don't expect it to look like an Apple ad. Maybe they should change the name of the song to I Will Follow Wherever the Money Is.

Nanomedia: Can It Create Viable Stars

In Fred Wilson's blog, avc.com, he talks about his Internet radio station, fredwilson.fm. Each day he adds one song that means something to him at that moment. Today it's What Is The Life by George Harrison, which reminds me that I still need to get All Things Must Pass. He figures he has about 60 listeners per day, which amounts to 1300 visitors per month. This is nanomedia. He points out that HypeMachine put all these nano sites, including music blogs, together and what you have is one big, huge hunk of media and lots of listeners/readers.

The numbers don't lie, but what we don't have is a filter for finding the site that works best for you. This is something that I've argued the record labels were good for. Finding new music now isn't hard. There is just so much of it available that you want to find the good stuff. If you find a blogger who has the same taste as you, you're in luck. All of this media is a great thing for diversity, but it's probably not going to let us discover the next U2, Dave Matthews Band or even the next Weezer. How can you capitalize on all this media for one act? Whoever answers that will have written the next chapter in the music business.

We Are One: Concert at the Lincoln Memorial

Singing in 20 degree weather can't be easy. Yesterday musicians paid tribute to Barack Obama by performing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. It's a dramatic and inspiring backdrop. Many of the songs were performed with a choir. Springsteen with acoustic guitar and choir behind him delivered a poignant version of The Rising. John Mellencamp and choir belted out a rousing version of Pink Houses. The only full band performance came from U2. They paid tribute to Martin Luther King Jr with In The Name of Love and followed it up with City Of Blinding Lights.

The ladies really rocked the show. They out rocked the guys.

1. Mary J Blige's cover of Lean On Me took on steam as the song progressed.
   
2. Renee Fleming powerfully interpreted Roger's and Hammerstein's You'll Never Walk Alone.
3. I was very exited to see Heather Headley perform with Josh Grobman. She has one of the best voices and she hadn't been on my radar lately. Their duet was a beautiful interpretation of My Country Tis of Thee.
4. Bettye LaVette proves that she just keeps getting better. She blew me away with her rendition of Love Reign O’er Me at the Kennedy Center Honors last month and continued to do so yesterday with her performance of A Change Is Gonna Come. Jon Bon Jovi sang with her.
5. Beyonce closed the show with America The Beautiful with the days performers joining her on stage for the last verse.
   

With the exception of U2, it was a celebration of the music of this country, although the lone jazz artist represented was Herbie Hancock. HBO is running it online, watch it. The performers were there because they wanted to be and the passion and pride were evident on every one of their faces. It's good to be an American.

The Live Nation Deals: Where Are They Now?

The following AP release is very telling. Apparently U2 has cashed in their stock options on their Live Nation deal. This happens before they have performed one show under the new contract. See piece below:

U2 Divests LN Stock - Promoter Takes A Hit
Posted: December 18, 2008
Irish rock band U2 made a killing in the stock market after they moved to sell the 1,556,386 shares in Live Nation stock. U2 acquired the shares as part of the 12-year 360 deal they signed with Live Nation in March of 2008.
At the time, the company touted the stock holding as evidence of the band's faith in the business model. As a part of the agreement, Live Nation guaranteed that the band would receive at least $25 million for the stock. Unfortunately for Live Nation, their share price has dipped precipitously in recent months and company's shares were trading at $3.80, clearing just under 6 million, leaving the promoter holding the bag for the remaining $19 million.

Despite the sale, the U2's manager took pains to restate the band's commitment to the pact. "We're very much in business with [Live Nation] and we're planning to tour in 2009." Paul McGuinness, the band's manager told the Wall Street Journal.

U2's deal with Live Nation has yet to be very profitable for the promoter as the band hasn't toured since 2006. The Irish rockers have stated that they plan to release an album next year with aforementioned tour to follow and the band has a proven track record of moving tickets so it remains very likely that Live Nation will still post a profit from the U2 deal in the long-term.

Unfortunately, however the other shoe may be ready to drop for the promoter in April, as Madonna becomes eligible to sell the $25 million in stock holdings she acquired from her own 360 agreement with Live Nation. Unlike U2 however, Madonna has been an earner this year, pulling in more than $120 million (and counting) from her "Sticky & Sweet" tour.

Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino tried to offer some perspective to the sale, noting to the WSJ that "Madonna and U2 are the only two deals that did contain this provision. The Madonna business is great, and we look forward to monetizing our investment in U2 next year."

At time of publication, Live Nation's shares were trading slightly higher at $4.07.

Live Nation Scooping It Up

According to the NY Times, Live Nation is now signing Jay-Z for a $150 million dollar deal. He was president of the record label he was on. He now signs with a tour promoter. JayZ is not know as a road warrior.

The deal includes financing for his own entertainment venture, in addition to recordings and tours for the next decade. The pact, expected to be finalized this week, is the most expansive deal yet from Live Nation, which has angled to compete directly with the industry’s established music labels in a scrum over the rights to distribute recordings, sell concert tickets, market merchandise and control other aspects of artists’ careers.

As it's been stated, it appears Live Nation is just bulking up the assets to sell it again. Nothing like regifting. As Bob Lefsetz said, who do you want to be in with Michael Jordan or the hottest young basketball player. He also points out that when David Geffen started his own label he signed Elton John, John Lennon and Donna Summer. Not until he signed a new act, Guns N Roses, did he start printing money. Three veterans now signed to 10 year deals with Live Nation. Jay-Z wil be 49/50 years old when the deal expires. Madonna will be 60/61 and U2 will be close to Madonna. I'm not throwing stones as I could have gone to school with Bono. I just know that touring is not for the faint of heart. The older you get, the less important it is prove yourself or take on the road. We'll see if Live Nation gets the big payday. We'll see if it's worth the money to these acts.

U2 latest to sign on with Live Nation

U2 is one of the rare acts today that doesn't need the music industry to survive. They might not sell as many records as they used to (no one does), but they can sell out any tour they put on sale. They must sell lots of merchandise. In other words, they do not lack for financial resources. An article in the WSJ yesterday laid out the terms of what Live Nation will be handling for U2. The monetary compensation was not announced.

Live Nation will not have a stake in the band's recorded music or publishing. They will be promoter of record for tours for the next 10 years, handle merchandise and the band's website. For the same portion of her deal, apparently Madonna was paid $70 million by Live Nation. As WSJ points out, this deal keeps the status quo. Live Nation or it's predecessors have produced and promoted every U2 tours since 1997, a subsidiary, already manages their website and deals with their merch.

I scratch my head as to why U2 made this deal. Is it a monetary windfall? Does that even matter to them? The ability to control your own destiny, the ability to go where you want, when you want seems to be synonymous with U2. After the debacle of their fan club members, who paid a minimum of $40, not being able to buy choice seats for their tour, you think they would want to rethink the whole thing, not make a 10 year deal. Do they want want to be beholden to a behemoth?

Live Nation is acquiring at break neck speed. They own merch companies, website/fan club administers, recording contracts (Madonna)-but no label, as well as being promoters. They are starting an in-house Ticketmaster type service. Is Live Nation becoming an otopus with a few too many arms? Are they spreading themselves too thin? Are they the future of the music business?