Well seeing as 'manufactured' groups have been round since the 60s then I guess they are here to stay

---

by Mr Bob
Personally, I really think they should have left the music making to the professionals.

---

Which is, of course, exactly what they do do. Professional songwriters, producers and session players create all the music for these groups, so in that sense, they're vastly more professional than your average rock band.

As Syd said, manufactured groups have been around pretty much since pop music existed, and they're not going to go away. What I do object to is seeing these groups manufactured live on national TV - it just makes the industry look as cheap and tacky as it really is.

---

Also, I find the music companies targetting of internet file sharers somewhat silly. They will be here to stay, because you can't stop non-centralised systems, such as Gnutella from operating.

---

So, just because it's difficult to prevent an illegal activity, there's no point in trying? Not that I particularly agree with their tactics - their claims that piracy is killing the industry are looking increasingly ridiculous, see for example this from The Register. And as has been said over and over again, what the record companies should be doing is looking forward and figuring out how to operate and make money with these new technologies - without eliminating any concept of 'fair use' of copyrighted material, as they seem intent on doing.

---

Besides, if the music companies took a step back and realised that the standard of music has dramatically fallen,

---

Since when?

---

by In a State of Dan
Which is, of course, exactly what they do do. Professional songwriters, producers and session players create all the music for these groups, so in that sense, they're vastly more professional than your average rock band.

---

Dan's right, the standard of musicianship is just as high now as it's ever been, the songs are pretty much the same as they've ever been.

If you break down the music of everyone from Linkin Park to Britney, it's actually very similar, just arranged and performed using differnet instruments.

What I think the problem is is that bands are no longer just manufactured, but mass produced. The major labels leave no scope for a band to develop and as such, we get 5 pretty faces and perfect bodies, who can be taught to sing, releasing the songs that a 50 year old in an office is writing to a very successful formula rather than 5 averages folks spending time together writing some new and different songs and coming up with a new formula.

"original" music is still available, you just have to look/listen for it in other places than on MTV.

Personally I (along with many musicians, both amateur and professional) regard file sharing as theft. You're stealing someone's intellectual property when you copy and trade songs like that.

By going after the fans bands and record companies do themselves no favours, but I still wouldn't be happy if someone was ripping off my songs when I should be getting paid for folks owning a copy.

According to the half week sales figure, the Girls Aloud single, which is occupying provisional No 1 spot, sold 40,000 copies on the first day. This is compared with Hear'say's 160,000 first day sales. Will Young sold in excess of 350,000 copies on the first day with his debut single. So although this may be an isolated case, it looks like it may be that a certain amount of public apathy towards the TV manyfactured groups has set in.

As Syd has said, manufactured groups have been around since the sixties. However, the sheer abundance of music channels (16 on Sky Digital, last time I counted) these days and the more widespead availability of these channels means that record companies are now fully able to exploit these groups, because of the fact that a lot of peoples' record buying is driven by the looks, attitude and general 'fanciability' of an artist, rather than the quality of the song. As long as that's what the demand is for, the supply will inevitably continue.

Hmmmm, I didn't realise that so much is 'manufactured' and maybe it is the cheap and tacky TV groups that I really don't like.

---

by In a State of Dan
Since when?

---

Well, I used to watch TOTP every week, because I liked the music in the charts. Nowadays, I wouldn't even consider watching it - doesn't do anything for me. Maybe it's just that I've grown out of this sort of music, but I certainly perceived it as a drop in the standard/quality of music.

---

by Monster
Personally I (along with many musicians, both amateur and professional) regard file sharing as theft. You're stealing someone's intellectual property when you copy and trade songs like that.

By going after the fans bands and record companies do themselves no favours, but I still wouldn't be happy if someone was ripping off my songs when I should be getting paid for folks owning a copy.

---

On the other side of the coin, file sharing has done alot to help the industry, I listen to alot of music on the net, and in alot of cases, I would never have half the collection I have now, if I hadn't listened to it first, example; David Grey's White Ladder, it's just not the sort of thing I would go and buy, until I heard on the internet. Another example, before I had the internet, I brought U2's POP album, and I have played it once, it is now gathering dust. It's not as if you can go and take it back and say 'no, didn't like it, can I swap it' The problem lies with the 'dodgy bloke' who rips a cd's and then sells them down the market, for a few quid, with no money going to the artist/record company/songwriter e.t.c.
Alot of the time we are co-erced into buying a cd because of the hype, and find out it is a load of 'tut'. In these instances I think file-sharing is not a crime. After all you are fully entitled to try on a dress before you buy, so why not listen to a cd, before you buy.

---

by Mishelisa


On the other side of the coin, file sharing has done alot to help the industry, I listen to alot of music on the net, and in alot of cases, I would never have half the collection I have now, if I hadn't listened to it first,

---

I agree If bands made some/more tracks available freely I
reckon it'd do nothing but help their sales

---

by Mishelisa
The problem lies with the 'dodgy bloke' who rips a cd's and then sells them down the market, for a few quid, with no money going to the artist/record company/songwriter e.t.c.

---

The trouble is the exact same principle applies to the dodgy bloke who uploads the tracks tothe net for anyone to download, whether it's free or not. The artist still doesn't get their rightful royalties!

---

by Mishelisa
Alot of the time we are co-erced into buying a cd because of the hype, and find out it is a load of 'tut'. In these instances I think file-sharing is not a crime. After all you are fully entitled to try on a dress before you buy, so why not listen to a cd, before you buy.

---

A lot of stores will let you listen before you buy and a lot of online places will have samples that you can download, ome places will even let you take it back for a credit note if it's not as good as you thought it would be!!! I think that if folks would buy a CD as a result of what they download it could be though of as ok, it's when it's done instead of buying the CD that I and many musicians take exception to it.

(Edited by MonSTeR 19/12/2002 22:12)

As Sydney has said, manufactured bands go back to the sixties. In fact, I think you can even argue they are as old as the record (or phonograph) industry.

The whole Tamla/Motown scene was manufactured, and I think the world would be a poorer place for it. Many rock bands are manufactured. Linkin Park comes to mind and while I could do without Reanimation, but not Hybrid Theory.

What I do object to is Karaoke pop, which Mr Waterman seems to have reduced the pop scene to. Why write songs when you can endlessly release covers? Bland pop I can cope with - after all, that's just my opinion. But acts like Atomic Kitten and Sugarbabes (post reform) make me sick.

As for piracy/internet file sharing, I still have a whole bunch of copied tapes that I made from the ages of about 14 and 24 - ie - when I had little or no disposable income. My favourites I know have on CD or vinyl. I don't copy any more as I can afford the small fortune I spend on music every year. Most of the people I know behave the same way. I see no difference between this and file sharing. Anyone who loves the music and has the money will always buy the original, however good the quality of MP3s are.

Most of the people who went after Napster were record labels or multi-millionaire artists. Many organizations representing smaller artists supported Napster as it was a good way to get their music heard when their record label couldn't be bothered to promote them. Banning file sharing will not increase the royalties recieved by artists, but instead make us more dependant on who the record labels think we should be listening to. And that can only be a bad thing.

---

by DJ Billy
According to the half week sales figure, the Girls Aloud single, which is occupying provisional No 1 spot, sold 40,000 copies on the first day. This is compared with Hear'say's 160,000 first day sales. Will Young sold in excess of 350,000 copies on the first day with his debut single. So although this may be an isolated case, it looks like it may be that a certain amount of public apathy towards the TV manyfactured groups has set in.

---

I'm glad that they haven't sold such a phenominal amount of singles With first single sales figures of the hearsay/will young variety then every time they release something else its going to be "ooooo well it isn't another record breaker like last time they much be doing soooooooooo badly" Never mind the fact that 20 weeks of regular TV advertising preceded the release *rolleyes* I'd love Girls Aloud to stick around for a while (so long as they continue to release vaguely original material)

---

by DJ Billy
the sheer abundance of music channels (16 on Sky Digital, last time I counted)

---

17 now (18 if you include Classic FM TV)