M.I.A. - Kala

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#1
I just got my hands on this and been listening ever since. You can listen to it for free on her myspace page.







Amazon.com
Maya Arulpragasam, the British-based daughter of Sri Lankan refugees, delivered one of 2005's eye-popping debuts, Arular. For an album that proudly flaunted tin-can production, indecipherable South London slang, and lyrical nods to suicide bombers, it brought the woman who records under the name M.I.A. unexpected mainstream success--she followed its release by touring North America with Gwen Stefani and recording with Missy Elliott and Timbaland, while the single "Galang" made its way into a car commercial. Kala (the first release was named after her freedom-fighting father, this one after her mother) throws Arulpragasam's newfound pop credentials into the bustle of Bollywood rhythms, police sirens, 8-bit dancehall beats, Third World car horns, and street singers. Recorded across several continents, it presents a far more dynamic listening experience than her first album, especially with tracks like "Bamboo Banga," "Jimmy," and "Paper Planes." It's no less exhausting, though. What with the New Order sample, Timbaland cameo, and gunshot sound effects, there isn't a moment when it doesn't feel like you've unintentionally invited an entire carnival into your home. --Aidin Vaziri

Product Description
THIS CD FEATURES A FREE RINGTONE AND MOBILE PHONE WALLPAPER (see insert for details)

M.I.A. is hailed as one of the most freshly creative artists to hit the scene, paving the way for fierce and adventurous females to break the mold. With KALA, she pulls even more globe-trekking, and genre bending into her musical mix.

Recorded in India, Trinidad, Australia, London, New York and Baltimore, M.I.A. has crafted an international sound that is as excitingly undefineable as it is infectious.

The first single from KALA, "Boyz" was just listed at #1 Rolling Stone's Hot List, and #1 song of the Month in Blender magazine!

"Electrifying" - The New York Times
 
May 31, 2007
3,992
10
0
33
#2
had this for a month or something like that now haha... Its straight... definately one of those that you gotta give a few listens. At first I liked Arular better but i gotta keep listnin to this one... I bet itll grow on me
 
Oct 10, 2005
613
0
0
44
#12
ColdBlooded said:
Hmmmm . . . Free Vs $8

Stop being a dumb fuck and wise up
wise up? your saying this in the music industry forum.. thats pretty wise.. because people download everything for free, artists dont get paid, when artists dont get paid, they dont make good music (or any for that matter) because theres no incentive... and im the dumb fuck? your the one killing the industry
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#13
Music downloading didn't kill the industry. Bad music and bad business killed the industry.

Artists rarely make money off their record sales anyway - which is why downloading hardly impacts the artist's bottom line.
 

Nuttkase

not nolettuce
Jun 5, 2002
38,746
159,554
113
44
at the welfare mall
#14
Downloading did put a major dent in the music industry. There have always been shitty band that put out shitty music that people like for some odd reason and they used to sell millions. Not anymore.

I borrow usually only major label records from the internet. Oh and stuff you couldn't find in stores to save your life. If it's local or a independent band and I like what I heard from borrowing the album from the internet I'll buy a copy and usually try to do it directly from the band cutting out the middle man. Or I go to their concert which makes them more money directly by just attending and/or buying some merch.

But I think to say that downloading didn't kill the music is kind of absurd. Yes it was already on the decline, but downloading was like the uppercut for the KO in the 10th round.
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#16
Some info on the subject

"Between 1995 and 1999, there were around 500 rap records released each year except for 1999 where the numbers doubled (1995 saw 469 releases; 1996 saw 482 releases; 1997 saw 497 releases; 1998 saw 477 releases; and 1999 saw 997 releases). Yet only such a small percentage of those releases sold at Gold or Platinum level (500,000 plus, and 1,000,000 plus, respectively). In 1998, there were 477 rap records released. Of this amount, only 12 went platinum and only 14 went Gold. That’s a tiny 5% of all of the rap records released--very ugly odds. In fact, only 57 sold above 250,000 units. In 1999, there were 997 records released and only 51 sold more than 250,000 units. Of those 51 releases, 11 were releases that sold above 1 million units (Platinum) and 20 releases that sold above 500,000 units (Gold). And yet those 31 Gold and Platinum records, out of 997 releases, accounted for 63% of the rap sales volume in 1999."

Must have been a result of music downloading!

Most people understand that rappers don’t make money from their record deals, which leaves touring, appearances on other artists’ records, and endorsements as the only way for an artist to really earn income. So try that downloading hurts the artist B.S. with someone else. I’m not falling for it.

Record labels are what hurt artists, not consumers.

"When an artist gets signed to a label deal, especially a rap artist, he or she receives somewhere between 8 and 13 points. What that means is 8% to 13% of the retail sales price, after the record label recoups the money it puts out (the advance, the sample clearances, the producers, usually half the cost of the video, any cash outlays for the artists, etc.). The artist has to sell hella units to make any money back. Here's an example of a relatively fair record deal for a new rap artist with some clout in the industry and a terrific negotiating attorney:
ROYALTY RATE: 12% "All in deal"
We're going to assume that there are 3 artists in the group, and that they split everything equally. We're also going to assume that they produce their own tracks themselves.
Suggested retail list price: $10.98 less 15% packaging deduction (usually 20%) $ 9.33 gets paid on 85% of records sold ("free goods") $ 7.93
So the artists' 12% is equal to about 96 cents per record sold.
Let's assume that they are a hit and their record goes gold (although it is rare that a first record blows up like this).
GOLD RECORD = 500,000 units sold x $ .96 = $480,000. Looks like a nice chunk of loot, huh? Watch this. Now the label recoups what they've spent. Independent promotion, 1/2 the video cost, some tour support, all those limo rides, all those out of town trips for the artist and their friends, etc.
$480,000 -$100,000 recoupable stuff (NOT advance) -------- $380,000 -$ 70,000 advance (recording costs) -------- $310,000
Still sounds OK? Watch... Now, half of the $380,000 stays "in reserve" (accounting for returned items from retail stores) for 2 to 4 years depending on the length specified in the recording contract. So the $70,000 advance is actually subtracted from $190,000 (the other $190,000 is in reserves for 2 years). Now, there's also the artist's manager, who is entitled to 20% of all of the entertainment income which would be 20% of $310,000, or $62,000. Remember, the artist is the last to get paid, so even the manager gets paid before the artist.
So the artists actually receive $19,333 each for their gold album, and in two years when the reserves are liquidated, IF they've recouped, they will each receive another $63,000. IF they've recouped. Guess who keeps track of all of this accounting? The label. Most contracts are "cross-collateralized," which means if the artist does not recoup on the first album, the money will be paid back out of the second album. Also, if the money is not recouped on the second album, repayment can come out of the "in reserve" funds from the first album, if the funds have not already been liquidated.
Even after the reserves are paid, each artist only actually made 50 cents per unit based on this example. The label made about $2.68 per unit. This example also doesn't include any additional production costs for an outside producer to come in and do a re-mix, and you know how often that happens.
So each artist in this group has received a total of about $82,000. After legal expenses and costs of new clothing to wear on stage while touring, etc, each artist has probably made a total of $75,000 before paying taxes."
 

Nuttkase

not nolettuce
Jun 5, 2002
38,746
159,554
113
44
at the welfare mall
#17
I'm talking about the music industry in general, not just rap. Rap has been on a decline for the last few years because for a lot of people it was just the "in fad" for awhile. 99.9% of rap albums are garbage these days anyways though.

The second part was a good read by the way. What is your source?
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#18
Nuttkase said:
I'm talking about the music industry in general, not just rap. Rap has been on a decline for the last few years because for a lot of people it was just the "in fad" for awhile. 99.9% of rap albums are garbage these days anyways though.

That's why I used the data for 95-99. When some of the more quality albums dropped as well as at one of Rap's selling peaks.

Nuttkase said:
The second part was a good read by the way. What is your source?
Wendy Day