Marie Digby: YouTube celeb pimped by Disney (DIS)

Melly posting on behalf of Bill:

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article was wrong about Marié Digby. To anyone who followed her videos, it's obvious that Marié Digby has always been herself.

The article stated:
-----
"Ms. Digby's MySpace and YouTube pages don't mention Hollywood Records. Until last week, a box marked "Type of Label" on her MySpace Music page said, "None."
-----
However, she had joined MySpace in 2004, roughly 2 years before she was signed, and she merely didn't bother to update a setting, and she'd probably forgotten that setting even existed. I signed up for a MySpace music page, and it could even be missed when first signing up. And, since months after she recorded her CD, there was no indication it was ever going to be released, I wouldn't expect that it would even cross her mind to change her status to signed, even if she was still aware of that setting. Note, her CD didn't come out until approximately 2 years after she was signed, and approximately 4 years after she joined MySpace.
The article went on to state:
-----
"After inquiries from The Wall Street Journal, the entry was changed to "Major," though the label still is not named."
-----
Makes sense to me. There is no point in naming a record label when there is no indication they are going to release your CD. And, given that, who she was signed with has just as little relevance as that she was signed. (Note, the CD, titled "Unfold" finally came out on April 8, 2008. Buy it, it's wonderful).

The Wall Street Journal article also contained:
-----
'Most of Ms. Digby's new fans seem pleased to believe that they discovered an underground sensation.
-----
In fact, the vast majority of the posts were about her music, and not about "discovering" her. For most of us viewers, a huge number of people had already seen her videos when we found her, which were posted long before the WSJ article, so we could hardly claim to have 'discovered her.'

The term "feigning amateur status", used in the WSJ article is completely ridiculous. Marié Digby posted music videos, and expressed enthusiasm, and hope. She was largely unknown outside of Los Angeles.

Marié Digby has posted that a Wall Street reporter talked to Marié Digby for about an hour, but they never asked the questions that would have cleared this up. Instead, they took one response, which merely meant that her signed status wasn't relevant to her goals (and frankly, would have seemed ridiculous in the videos), as meaning she was hiding it.

There were radio station interviews, before the WSJ article, where she mentioned being signed. If she were hiding it, she would have hid it there too.

I gather Marié Digby's family is rather well off. She never mentioned that in her videos either. I wouldn't say she was, "feigning middle class status," but I'm sure some people would! Sad!

It's disturbing that the article that appeared in the WSJ
is assumed to be accurate by yourself (you're trusting that article ?)and others (?) just because it appeared in PRINT. As someone who knows Marie*, don't believe what you read, it's inaccurate and a very unfair depiction of a young person trying to share her music with others.

The WSJ got this story wrong. I am one the fans who Marié Digby supposedly tricked, and I can tell you there was NO BIG SECRET. Marié’s signing with Hollywood Records was well known among a lot of her fans on YouTube and MySpace. Information about her signing could be found in the comments to her videos. In addition, she had listed Hollywood Records on her MySpace page in the past. If her fans bought her version of Umbrella on iTunes, they would have seen Hollywood Records as the releasing label. In addition a simple Google search would also have turned up information.

Marié also did a radio interview on STAR 98.7 in Los Angeles on August 2 in which she tells the 12 million or so people in the greater Los Angeles area that she is signed with Hollywood Records. She even told her MySpace friends to listen in ahead of time! If she was running a ruse, she wasn’t doing it very well!

If you are curious, here's how you can listen to the interview.
1) Go to Google. Google the following: star 98.7 fm valentine lisa foxx
2) Click on the link "STAR 98.7 FM - Valentine and Lisa Foxx in the Morning." (It should be the first one.)
3) Click on the "On Demand" menu and select "STAR Interviews and More."
4) Scroll down to "Marie Digby Part 2" (about a quarter of the way down)
5) Click on the "Listen" icon.

Metaphorically speaking, Marié’s only crime was that she put her association with Hollywood Records on the inside jacket of her book rather than the cover. The information was there for anyone who looked. There is a story to tell about Marié Digby, the Internet, and the recording industry, but the WSJ missed it.

Hmmm...

I's hard to know who's telling the truth but if everything was Kosher, then why did her story make news?

However, I was like give me a FB when I read the article in the WSJ. I thought, yet again the greedy's come up with another scheme to try and promote their pitiful artists. And of course, they can never be honest with it either. -But hey, you have to give em credit. It's a legal step up from just outright buying their artists records right?

Satina

Rather funny how some people automatically dismiss the fact that during her radio interview, she said she was signed AND there were articles out before WSJ saying she was signed. Funny how people overlook that. It's obvious that people like to believe controversy over the truth because that's what probably makes their day or some crap. It also shows that some people will believe anything they read. Rather naive.

marie digby hot video here:
http://vot.cc/video/marie_digby
9 minutes explicit video.