first solid industry-shot @ Macklemore:

@ 01:21

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “first solid industry-shot @ Macklemore:

  1. the irony is heavy with this one.

    are you serious?!?

    macklemore made it from [outside] the industry, it took 12 years.

    this song is about [record labels] which mack didn’t sign to.

    ha ha ha

    you can’t be serious.

    • “MADE IT” = INDUSTRY

      “this song is about [record labels] which mack didn’t sign to”

      – on the contrary –

      when somebody signs to WARNER MUSIC GROUP (or an affiliate), that means that they are SIGNED.

      i don’t know what “sign” means to you – – – but SIGNED = SIGNED in business.

      and in this context, when you SIGN a deal with W.M.G., that makes you INDUSTRY.

      c’mon man…let’s not play semantics here.

      and this song ain’t about RECORD LABELS – it’s about the FRAUDS that record labels SIGN, support, mass-market AND distribute.

      • “…this song ain’t about RECORD LABELS – it’s about the FRAUDS that record labels SIGN, support, mass-market AND distribute.”

        then why do they occupy the label office and take the label execs hostage?
        why don’t they go after the “frauds” in the video?

        it’s obvious the [bad guy] is the one one the phone in his office.

      • “why don’t they go after the “frauds” in the video?”

        they do.

        they went after everybody.

        the frauds were noted / ‘went after’ in the compact disc / album depictions and the magazine cover reference; which was the FIRST reference.

      • “the video is even called “operation: label take over”

        don’t look so deep into it that you miss the main point / / / more importantly / / / don’t look AROUND the main point.

        or

        don’t misinterpret the MACKLEMORE Rolling Stone magazine cover as ambiguous – because it’s far from ambiguous.

  2. his deal was for distribution.
    the difference is paramount.
    sub-pop manufactured the same love 45 single, but mack didn’t sign to sub pop.

    mack is in opposition to the same industry n****s that this track castigates.

    did the heist come out on warner? no. it was released independently.

    why is it so hard to establish the basic facts?

    • “mack is in opposition to the same industry n****s that this track castigates”

      PLEASE and HARDLY.

      Macklemore is just a PG-13 White boy that’s out to connect to other Whites via rearranged & repackaged Black culture; nothing more, nothing less.

      he isn’t some kind of super-hero that’s out fighting for gays, Blacks, and ‘independent artists’.

      he’s just a White guy doing what White people do – infiltrate, dominate, obliterate.

      • “his deal was for distribution.”

        meaning that he SIGNED a deal with a MAJOR. PERIOD. as basic a fact as basic facts get.

    • “his deal was for distribution.
      the difference is paramount.”

      you may not want to notice, but – “INDEPENDENT” doesn’t equal DISTRIBUTION DEAL.

    • the DAY that Cash Money Records got SIGNED their DISTRIBUTION DEAL with UNIVERSAL in ’98, they became INDUSTRY.

      unless you’re saying that C.M.R. was still “INDEPENDENT” after they signed.

      c’mon now.

      you keep trying to equate INDEPENDENT with DISTRIBUTION DEAL; which in my opinion is OFFENSIVE to TRUE independent artists. ‘signed independent artist’ ROFL.

      • from wiki>

        “In 1998, Cash Money signed a $30 million pressing and distribution with $3 million advance contract with Universal, entitling the label to 85% of its royalties, 50% of its publishing revenues and ownership of all masters. Dino Delvaille, who orchestrated the deal, later told HitQuarters: “I made certain they retained 100% ownership of their work. They deserve it.”

        one hundred percent ownership sounds extremely independent.
        yes.

      • cash money was simply giving universal a right to make money from its enterprise,

        however, they remained in total control and retained full ownership.
        how is that a compromise for cash money?

      • being ‘independent’ is based on more than just owning your publishing.

        like i said, once you SIGN any type of DEAL with a MAJOR, you LOSE the ‘independent’ title.

        but hey, that’s just my take on it; and agreeing to disagree is totally fine with me.

      • some artists want their music to be heard by the [widest] possible audience.
        this could include fans of all races, ages, and genders.
        others are so reclusive they seem to make music only for themselves.
        no artist is better or worse for their choice, both choices have merit.

        obviously mack and em fell into the previous category.

        there is a washout that occurs in the mainstream. a truly sensitive and intelligent type of person would try to avoid that glaring spotlight. however, someone who would rather get money will be happy to sign a deal of any kind, dusting of distribution or something more full-contract boxing.

        once your music hits the system you lose control of your career. you become an object for the fans.

        all that aside, you have to respect any artist that retains control over the rights to their own material, whether or not that material ever sees a wide audience or remains hidden on the interwebs is another discussion entirely.

      • “you have to respect any artist that retains control over the rights to their own material, whether or not that material ever sees a wide audience or remains hidden on the interwebs is another discussion entirely.”

        SURE.

        let’s just call apples, apples – and oranges, oranges.

      • the fact of the matter is that “INDEPENDENT” means different things to different people.

        just like “FREESTYLING” means different things to different people.

        traditional terms change daily for those of the subjective mind; as opposed to the objective mind.

        the MAJORITY of “independent” artists don’t have DISTRIBUTION DEALS.

        calling someone INDEPENDENT that has a distribution deal is like calling BLACK that is really mixed / bi-racial (Black mother / Black father).

        TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS; depending on who you ask.

        people LOVE to change the meaning of words when they are attempting to make an shaky argument.

  3. “some artists want their music to be heard by the [widest] possible audience.
    this could include fans of all races, ages, and genders.”

    right.

    let’s not play like “widest” doesn’t equal WHITEST.

    MAINSTREAM is synonymous with WHITE.

    all of the other “races” are just afterthoughts.

    • “MAINSTREAM is synonymous with WHITE.

      all of the other “races” are just afterthoughts.”

      what decade are you talking about?
      in 2010, 21% the us is asian [5%] and hispanic [16%].
      three years later those numbers are still increasing.

      when is 21% of anything an afterthought?
      would you give up 21% of your paycheck?
      didn’t think so.

      and do you realize the [profound] and [ugly] racism in your statement?

      • “do you realize the [profound] and [ugly] racism in your statement?”

        HELL NO MY STATEMENT ISN’T RACIST, lol.

        you can post “2010” all you like, but the fact of the matter is MAINSTREAM equaled WHITE way, way, WAY before 2010.

        mainstream was white 50+ years ago…

        and you wanna talk about 21%?

        come back and argue that point after MINORITIES are NOT the minority anymore.

        to put it simply, MAJORITY > MINORITY; numerically speaking.

        MAINSTREAM = MAJORITY.

        simple enough, right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s