As Bob Wier of the Grateful Dead once said
about "Go To Heaven"
"We tried to sell out, nobody would buy it"
so they had to find a diffrent path to success


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/2004

In article ,
"reddred" wrote:

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
Plenty of people like what they're told they like.

In terms of music there are too many gate keepers with too much a stake
for
this to happen.

If this were indeed true, Ricky Martin would be having hit after hit.
Smashmouth too. When the artists make music that the sudience does does
not
support there is no way to expose the music to the consumer.

In this vein, you will find that both Rcky martin and Samshmouth's
soundled
tracks are only the hits.

You don't have any significant downloads of Third Yey Blind's stiff album.
gee
I wonder why?


The best way to get people to buy stuff and to lower thier standards is to
limit thier options. That's why wal-mart goes to a town and loses money on a
store until all the competition is gone. Then you are able to choose from
the non-variety of products wal-mart has and that is where you do your
shopping. They have the appearance of variety and abundance, even though
their selection is actually pretty meager. One of each thing, sold en-masse
worldwide.

admittedly I only offer a very tiny example as wal-mart generally does
not offer the audio gear I spend most of my money on
but I need a compass for aligning dbs systems walmart had 6 diffrent
ones to choose from, as far as jeans go there were so many choices I
could not name them all, frozen pizzas, dozens to choose from
I can not buy into you claim that walmart does not offer a fair
assortment of goods

That is why the media conglomerates would rather deal with best buy and
wal-mart who offer a limited selection as loss leaders.

would you , as a supplier rather inventory a thousand store each
ordering 4 pcs or 4 chains each ordering 40,000 units
you can not fault vendor for selling to the guy who is buying

All the small stores
go out of business in all but the largest markets, limiting a consumers
options.

A small store has no more "right " to exist than a huge chain, if it
serves its market it will remain, when it no longer serves its market it
will fade

I have no desire to pay retail for fish food when I can get the same
fish food for 40% off
the discounter serves me better for some things , and the smaller more
focused business serves me b etter for other things, like 40 channel
soundcraft consoles


CD's are still largely an impulse buy for most people, a hands-on
experience, and people will for the most part buy what is in their face, so
you cut rosters as time goes by and only offer a limited selection in the
mega stores, ensuring larger return per release. If there is demand for
music, people will choose from any options they have.

I disagree, people hear something they like, then go look for that
thing(cd) if you like top 40 radio you are aware that walmart carries a
excellent inventory at reasonabvle prices
but if you want the BoomTown rats you also know to not even bother with
a walmart

You have to give at least rhe appearance of variety too, so it's a balancing
act. But it really doesn't take too many cd's to fill the shelf at wal-mart

if a market suddenly developed in sufficent size for left handed widget,
If I was the manager of a wal mart I would make sure I had left handed
widgets
if left handed widgets did not move with sufficent profit for the sq
footage they took up, I would no longer have left handed widgets


Clear channel has done this too with live music, as much as they can,
utilizing their promotion and broadcast properties. From thier perspective,
it makes good sense.

actuallt CC is pushing a political agenda by allowing some popular bands
while banning other equally popular bands
IMO they are doing this to manipulate , or curry favors from politicians
to pass laws that will give CC an advantage over its compition

In article ,
"reddred" wrote:

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
Plenty of people like what they're told they like.

In terms of music there are too many gate keepers with too much a stake
for
this to happen.

If this were indeed true, Ricky Martin would be having hit after hit.
Smashmouth too. When the artists make music that the sudience does does
not
support there is no way to expose the music to the consumer.

In this vein, you will find that both Rcky martin and Samshmouth's
soundled
tracks are only the hits.

You don't have any significant downloads of Third Yey Blind's stiff album.
gee
I wonder why?


The best way to get people to buy stuff and to lower thier standards is to
limit thier options. That's why wal-mart goes to a town and loses money on a
store until all the competition is gone. Then you are able to choose from
the non-variety of products wal-mart has and that is where you do your
shopping. They have the appearance of variety and abundance, even though
their selection is actually pretty meager. One of each thing, sold en-masse
worldwide.

admittedly I only offer a very tiny example as wal-mart generally does
not offer the audio gear I spend most of my money on
but I need a compass for aligning dbs systems walmart had 6 diffrent
ones to choose from, as far as jeans go there were so many choices I
could not name them all, frozen pizzas, dozens to choose from
I can not buy into you claim that walmart does not offer a fair
assortment of goods

That is why the media conglomerates would rather deal with best buy and
wal-mart who offer a limited selection as loss leaders.

would you , as a supplier rather inventory a thousand store each
ordering 4 pcs or 4 chains each ordering 40,000 units
you can not fault vendor for selling to the guy who is buying

All the small stores
go out of business in all but the largest markets, limiting a consumers
options.

A small store has no more "right " to exist than a huge chain, if it
serves its market it will remain, when it no longer serves its market it
will fade

I have no desire to pay retail for fish food when I can get the same
fish food for 40% off
the discounter serves me better for some things , and the smaller more
focused business serves me b etter for other things, like 40 channel
soundcraft consoles


CD's are still largely an impulse buy for most people, a hands-on
experience, and people will for the most part buy what is in their face, so
you cut rosters as time goes by and only offer a limited selection in the
mega stores, ensuring larger return per release. If there is demand for
music, people will choose from any options they have.

I disagree, people hear something they like, then go look for that
thing(cd) if you like top 40 radio you are aware that walmart carries a
excellent inventory at reasonabvle prices
but if you want the BoomTown rats you also know to not even bother with
a walmart

You have to give at least rhe appearance of variety too, so it's a balancing
act. But it really doesn't take too many cd's to fill the shelf at wal-mart

if a market suddenly developed in sufficent size for left handed widget,
If I was the manager of a wal mart I would make sure I had left handed
widgets
if left handed widgets did not move with sufficent profit for the sq
footage they took up, I would no longer have left handed widgets


Clear channel has done this too with live music, as much as they can,
utilizing their promotion and broadcast properties. From thier perspective,
it makes good sense.

actuallt CC is pushing a political agenda by allowing some popular bands
while banning other equally popular bands
IMO they are doing this to manipulate , or curry favors from politicians
to pass laws that will give CC an advantage over its compition

George wrote:



The best way to get people to buy stuff and to lower thier standards is to
limit thier options. That's why wal-mart goes to a town and loses money on a
store until all the competition is gone. Then you are able to choose from
the non-variety of products wal-mart has and that is where you do your
shopping. They have the appearance of variety and abundance, even though
their selection is actually pretty meager. One of each thing, sold en-masse
worldwide.


admittedly I only offer a very tiny example as wal-mart generally does
not offer the audio gear I spend most of my money on
but I need a compass for aligning dbs systems walmart had 6 diffrent
ones to choose from, as far as jeans go there were so many choices I
could not name them all, frozen pizzas, dozens to choose from
I can not buy into you claim that walmart does not offer a fair
assortment of goods

Ok. If you won't accept Walmart, how about Radio Shack?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

George wrote:



The best way to get people to buy stuff and to lower thier standards is to
limit thier options. That's why wal-mart goes to a town and loses money on a
store until all the competition is gone. Then you are able to choose from
the non-variety of products wal-mart has and that is where you do your
shopping. They have the appearance of variety and abundance, even though
their selection is actually pretty meager. One of each thing, sold en-masse
worldwide.


admittedly I only offer a very tiny example as wal-mart generally does
not offer the audio gear I spend most of my money on
but I need a compass for aligning dbs systems walmart had 6 diffrent
ones to choose from, as far as jeans go there were so many choices I
could not name them all, frozen pizzas, dozens to choose from
I can not buy into you claim that walmart does not offer a fair
assortment of goods

Ok. If you won't accept Walmart, how about Radio Shack?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
Being my cynical self, I think this may be because sooner or later
someone
will actually have to pay Nora, so you don't want people to like her too
much.

You have to be kidding.


A little, but think about it. One hit wonders are a lot more cost effective.
Ten one hit wonders that never recoup makes more sense than a single artist
with ten hits that can renegotiate a contract.

jb

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
Being my cynical self, I think this may be because sooner or later
someone
will actually have to pay Nora, so you don't want people to like her too
much.

You have to be kidding.


A little, but think about it. One hit wonders are a lot more cost effective.
Ten one hit wonders that never recoup makes more sense than a single artist
with ten hits that can renegotiate a contract.

jb

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


George wrote:



The best way to get people to buy stuff and to lower thier standards is
to
limit thier options. That's why wal-mart goes to a town and loses money
on a
store until all the competition is gone. Then you are able to choose
from
the non-variety of products wal-mart has and that is where you do your
shopping. They have the appearance of variety and abundance, even though
their selection is actually pretty meager. One of each thing, sold
en-masse
worldwide.


admittedly I only offer a very tiny example as wal-mart generally does
not offer the audio gear I spend most of my money on
but I need a compass for aligning dbs systems walmart had 6 diffrent
ones to choose from, as far as jeans go there were so many choices I
could not name them all, frozen pizzas, dozens to choose from
I can not buy into you claim that walmart does not offer a fair
assortment of goods

Ok. If you won't accept Walmart, how about Radio Shack?

yeah its been a bitch to find a good wallet or belt kit at radio shack for a
while now.
:-)
George


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/2004

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


George wrote:



The best way to get people to buy stuff and to lower thier standards is
to
limit thier options. That's why wal-mart goes to a town and loses money
on a
store until all the competition is gone. Then you are able to choose
from
the non-variety of products wal-mart has and that is where you do your
shopping. They have the appearance of variety and abundance, even though
their selection is actually pretty meager. One of each thing, sold
en-masse
worldwide.


admittedly I only offer a very tiny example as wal-mart generally does
not offer the audio gear I spend most of my money on
but I need a compass for aligning dbs systems walmart had 6 diffrent
ones to choose from, as far as jeans go there were so many choices I
could not name them all, frozen pizzas, dozens to choose from
I can not buy into you claim that walmart does not offer a fair
assortment of goods

Ok. If you won't accept Walmart, how about Radio Shack?

yeah its been a bitch to find a good wallet or belt kit at radio shack for a
while now.
:-)
George


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/2004

Being my cynical self, I think this may be because sooner or later someone
will actually have to pay Nora, so you don't want people to like her too
much.

You have to be kidding.

Most artists are discarded before they actually cost anything.

See above.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Being my cynical self, I think this may be because sooner or later someone
will actually have to pay Nora, so you don't want people to like her too
much.

You have to be kidding.

Most artists are discarded before they actually cost anything.

See above.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

S O'Neill wrote:
I'm just wondering what rights you get when you pay the media royalty.
Sounds like the answer is none anyway.

wasn't this hashed through in the 80s with the home recording act? just
replace DAT with CDR. seems like the same arguments hold.

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

S O'Neill wrote:
I'm just wondering what rights you get when you pay the media royalty.
Sounds like the answer is none anyway.

wasn't this hashed through in the 80s with the home recording act? just
replace DAT with CDR. seems like the same arguments hold.

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

Bob Cain wrote:
The correct term is "enabling technology" and what it enabled is easy
theft.

as well as enabling distribution of self-published works. it's a hell
of a lot easier to throw music files on a web site or p2p network than
it is duplicate and distribute physical media.

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

Bob Cain wrote:
The correct term is "enabling technology" and what it enabled is easy
theft.

as well as enabling distribution of self-published works. it's a hell
of a lot easier to throw music files on a web site or p2p network than
it is duplicate and distribute physical media.

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

Bob Cain wrote:



Roach wrote:



They're alienating the very people that are their income.


I doubt that very much. They are very pointedly alienating those that
don't pay for it. Damn straight they should be alienated. I buy and am
not the least alienated by the RIAA going after those that don't.

All these claims that it is the recording industry's responsibility to
shore up weak ethics and morality by finding ways that don't tempt or
don't allow is simply balderdash. The penalty of law is the way to do
that.

If you don't want to get busted don't steal. If you steal, expect to
get busted. If this is the only way to get that message out so as to
become common knowledge then so be it.


Bob

Yeah, expect it like you expect to win the lottery. So far, a tiny, tiny
fragment of the people who download have been sued, and nobody who uses
the smaller P2P groups has been sued. So scarey.
Queso

Bob Cain wrote:



Roach wrote:



They're alienating the very people that are their income.


I doubt that very much. They are very pointedly alienating those that
don't pay for it. Damn straight they should be alienated. I buy and am
not the least alienated by the RIAA going after those that don't.

All these claims that it is the recording industry's responsibility to
shore up weak ethics and morality by finding ways that don't tempt or
don't allow is simply balderdash. The penalty of law is the way to do
that.

If you don't want to get busted don't steal. If you steal, expect to
get busted. If this is the only way to get that message out so as to
become common knowledge then so be it.


Bob

Yeah, expect it like you expect to win the lottery. So far, a tiny, tiny
fragment of the people who download have been sued, and nobody who uses
the smaller P2P groups has been sued. So scarey.
Queso

A little, but think about it. One hit wonders are a lot more cost effective.


Not really because the cost invloved isn't "amortized" (if that's the correct
word). The more a record sells, the less the marketing %.

Ten one hit wonders that never recoup makes more sense than a single artist
with ten hits that can renegotiate a contract.

It is about the number of units sold and the up front costs more than more that
one hit wonder.

The Baha Men may not had much to recoup as it was a cheap record and no tour
support etc. That would have been making close to 2 bucks a record. It all
depends.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

A little, but think about it. One hit wonders are a lot more cost effective.


Not really because the cost invloved isn't "amortized" (if that's the correct
word). The more a record sells, the less the marketing %.

Ten one hit wonders that never recoup makes more sense than a single artist
with ten hits that can renegotiate a contract.

It is about the number of units sold and the up front costs more than more that
one hit wonder.

The Baha Men may not had much to recoup as it was a cheap record and no tour
support etc. That would have been making close to 2 bucks a record. It all
depends.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Ten one hit wonders that never recoup makes more sense than a single artist
with ten hits that can renegotiate a contract.

Some artists need to be careful when renegotiating. They start asking for big
advances which is money already in their pipeline and then need to go back and
recoup their own money. Dumb.

Think about it. You sell 4 million units. That record will recoup big time
and bring in around 6 or 7 mil in record royalties. Then some dumb ass, before
they receive the statement and payments that may take a year or so, will re do
the deal and take a 3 mil advance. Now they have to pay that back via the
artist rate via recoupment. They traded 6 or 7 mil for 3. Stupid. That is
where artists get ****ed. Bad planning.

I just finished a situation on a "heritage" band that just re released a
Greatest Hits with a TV campaign. the label kept asking us if we wanted an
advance and I kept saying no. The band is complety recouped and does very well
in roylaties every year. Why take something up front today that they will get
next Dec anyway? They would then be recouping atartist rate. never. Clean
and clear is they way to go.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Ten one hit wonders that never recoup makes more sense than a single artist
with ten hits that can renegotiate a contract.

Some artists need to be careful when renegotiating. They start asking for big
advances which is money already in their pipeline and then need to go back and
recoup their own money. Dumb.

Think about it. You sell 4 million units. That record will recoup big time
and bring in around 6 or 7 mil in record royalties. Then some dumb ass, before
they receive the statement and payments that may take a year or so, will re do
the deal and take a 3 mil advance. Now they have to pay that back via the
artist rate via recoupment. They traded 6 or 7 mil for 3. Stupid. That is
where artists get ****ed. Bad planning.

I just finished a situation on a "heritage" band that just re released a
Greatest Hits with a TV campaign. the label kept asking us if we wanted an
advance and I kept saying no. The band is complety recouped and does very well
in roylaties every year. Why take something up front today that they will get
next Dec anyway? They would then be recouping atartist rate. never. Clean
and clear is they way to go.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
hat page is very informative, but I think it must be quite old because
you can see five large conglomerates there (BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal,
and Warner). That number had shrunk to four some time ago, and last I
heard there were only two left but I don't know the details of who
merged with who.

None of these labels have merged. It's still the big 5.


There's Bertellsman, at least for a little while, EMI, the only real record
company of the bunch, Sony, Universal has been sold for cheap, and Warner
the same as part of a new company - whether it will still be a 'contender'
remains to be seen.

jb

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
hat page is very informative, but I think it must be quite old because
you can see five large conglomerates there (BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal,
and Warner). That number had shrunk to four some time ago, and last I
heard there were only two left but I don't know the details of who
merged with who.

None of these labels have merged. It's still the big 5.


There's Bertellsman, at least for a little while, EMI, the only real record
company of the bunch, Sony, Universal has been sold for cheap, and Warner
the same as part of a new company - whether it will still be a 'contender'
remains to be seen.

jb

In article writes:

as well as enabling distribution of self-published works. it's a hell
of a lot easier to throw music files on a web site or p2p network than
it is duplicate and distribute physical media.

Also less profitable. Take your pick.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

as well as enabling distribution of self-published works. it's a hell
of a lot easier to throw music files on a web site or p2p network than
it is duplicate and distribute physical media.

Also less profitable. Take your pick.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

There is a list of reporting members on their website. Is is extensive, but
by no means does it encompass the entire recording industry. There is
another list he http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/tree.asp

A lot of indie labels in there. Some that no longer are with us.


That page is very informative, but I think it must be quite old because
you can see five large conglomerates there (BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal,
and Warner). That number had shrunk to four some time ago, and last I
heard there were only two left but I don't know the details of who
merged with who. Still, there are 742 companies listed and I would
hazard a guess that must account for about 1% or less of the discrete
business entities who have released recordings for sale in the last
five years.

ulysses

There is a list of reporting members on their website. Is is extensive, but
by no means does it encompass the entire recording industry. There is
another list he http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/tree.asp

A lot of indie labels in there. Some that no longer are with us.


That page is very informative, but I think it must be quite old because
you can see five large conglomerates there (BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal,
and Warner). That number had shrunk to four some time ago, and last I
heard there were only two left but I don't know the details of who
merged with who. Still, there are 742 companies listed and I would
hazard a guess that must account for about 1% or less of the discrete
business entities who have released recordings for sale in the last
five years.

ulysses

hat page is very informative, but I think it must be quite old because
you can see five large conglomerates there (BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal,
and Warner). That number had shrunk to four some time ago, and last I
heard there were only two left but I don't know the details of who
merged with who.

None of these labels have merged. It's still the big 5.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

hat page is very informative, but I think it must be quite old because
you can see five large conglomerates there (BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal,
and Warner). That number had shrunk to four some time ago, and last I
heard there were only two left but I don't know the details of who
merged with who.

None of these labels have merged. It's still the big 5.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

George wrote:


admittedly I only offer a very tiny example as wal-mart generally does
not offer the audio gear I spend most of my money on
but I need a compass for aligning dbs systems walmart had 6 diffrent
ones to choose from, as far as jeans go there were so many choices I
could not name them all, frozen pizzas, dozens to choose from
I can not buy into you claim that walmart does not offer a fair
assortment of goods

If it's all you know, you have no reason to believe there are more
choices out there.

would you , as a supplier rather inventory a thousand store each
ordering 4 pcs or 4 chains each ordering 40,000 units
you can not fault vendor for selling to the guy who is buying

You can't really fault the vendors for wanting to maximize profits but
that doesn't change the fact that the consumer ultimately suffers. It
used to be that people went into business to provide a service or
produc, and profit was their reward. Now people go into business to
make profits and are somewhat annoyed that they have to provide a
service or product in order to do so. It's the difference between a
butcher shop owned by a butcher and a meat packing plant owned by
stockholders. Small businesses are better for consumers.

A small store has no more "right " to exist than a huge chain, if it
serves its market it will remain, when it no longer serves its market it
will fade

You're overlooking the fact that Wal-Mart has deliberately lost money
at its small-town stores in order to drive competitors out of business.
This is called "predatory pricing" and it's illegal. It's also
difficult to prosecute, especially when the "perpetrator" is the
largest company in the world and can afford their own government lobby.

I have no desire to pay retail for fish food when I can get the same
fish food for 40% off

That's frankly because you're naive about the real long-term
consequences of your buying decisions. You think you've "done the
math" but you're overlooking what will happen to the price and
selection of fish food after all the other shops are gone. You're
overlooking what happens to your neighborhood when the unskilled
laborforce is unable to earn a living wage, is forced into multiple
part-time jobs without benefits rather than one full-time job with
benefits (a tactic the army has borrowed from Wal-Mart recently) and
when they're prohibited from unionization. You haven't included a
bunch of things in your calculation about saving 40% on your fish food.

I disagree, people hear something they like, then go look for that
thing(cd) if you like top 40 radio you are aware that walmart carries a
excellent inventory at reasonabvle prices
but if you want the BoomTown rats you also know to not even bother with
a walmart

If Mall Wart is the only store in your town that sells CDs *at all* and
Clear Channel owns all of the radio stations that you can get decent
reception on (in other words, if you live in middle-America in a less
than large city) then you pretty much just won't be listening to the
Boomtown Rats, unless you hear "I Hate Mondays" on one of Clear
Channel's 3 local "Eighties Oldies" stations and decide to look them up
on the internet.

if a market suddenly developed in sufficent size for left handed widget,
If I was the manager of a wal mart I would make sure I had left handed
widgets
if left handed widgets did not move with sufficent profit for the sq
footage they took up, I would no longer have left handed widgets

Exactly. The problem is that the few people who do still want
left-handed widgets will not be able to buy them. This is bad for
consumers. The internet has the potential to solve this problem, but
it also is another opportunity for a new round of consolidation with
its attendant loss of selection and choice. That's why many of us are
complaining that the largest corporations should not be the only voice
in the debate over how to shape the new model.

ulysses

George wrote:


admittedly I only offer a very tiny example as wal-mart generally does
not offer the audio gear I spend most of my money on
but I need a compass for aligning dbs systems walmart had 6 diffrent
ones to choose from, as far as jeans go there were so many choices I
could not name them all, frozen pizzas, dozens to choose from
I can not buy into you claim that walmart does not offer a fair
assortment of goods

If it's all you know, you have no reason to believe there are more
choices out there.

would you , as a supplier rather inventory a thousand store each
ordering 4 pcs or 4 chains each ordering 40,000 units
you can not fault vendor for selling to the guy who is buying

You can't really fault the vendors for wanting to maximize profits but
that doesn't change the fact that the consumer ultimately suffers. It
used to be that people went into business to provide a service or
produc, and profit was their reward. Now people go into business to
make profits and are somewhat annoyed that they have to provide a
service or product in order to do so. It's the difference between a
butcher shop owned by a butcher and a meat packing plant owned by
stockholders. Small businesses are better for consumers.

A small store has no more "right " to exist than a huge chain, if it
serves its market it will remain, when it no longer serves its market it
will fade

You're overlooking the fact that Wal-Mart has deliberately lost money
at its small-town stores in order to drive competitors out of business.
This is called "predatory pricing" and it's illegal. It's also
difficult to prosecute, especially when the "perpetrator" is the
largest company in the world and can afford their own government lobby.

I have no desire to pay retail for fish food when I can get the same
fish food for 40% off

That's frankly because you're naive about the real long-term
consequences of your buying decisions. You think you've "done the
math" but you're overlooking what will happen to the price and
selection of fish food after all the other shops are gone. You're
overlooking what happens to your neighborhood when the unskilled
laborforce is unable to earn a living wage, is forced into multiple
part-time jobs without benefits rather than one full-time job with
benefits (a tactic the army has borrowed from Wal-Mart recently) and
when they're prohibited from unionization. You haven't included a
bunch of things in your calculation about saving 40% on your fish food.

I disagree, people hear something they like, then go look for that
thing(cd) if you like top 40 radio you are aware that walmart carries a
excellent inventory at reasonabvle prices
but if you want the BoomTown rats you also know to not even bother with
a walmart

If Mall Wart is the only store in your town that sells CDs *at all* and
Clear Channel owns all of the radio stations that you can get decent
reception on (in other words, if you live in middle-America in a less
than large city) then you pretty much just won't be listening to the
Boomtown Rats, unless you hear "I Hate Mondays" on one of Clear
Channel's 3 local "Eighties Oldies" stations and decide to look them up
on the internet.

if a market suddenly developed in sufficent size for left handed widget,
If I was the manager of a wal mart I would make sure I had left handed
widgets
if left handed widgets did not move with sufficent profit for the sq
footage they took up, I would no longer have left handed widgets

Exactly. The problem is that the few people who do still want
left-handed widgets will not be able to buy them. This is bad for
consumers. The internet has the potential to solve this problem, but
it also is another opportunity for a new round of consolidation with
its attendant loss of selection and choice. That's why many of us are
complaining that the largest corporations should not be the only voice
in the debate over how to shape the new model.

ulysses

George wrote:

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:


I put out about ten or so releases without barcodes. I guess that
means I'm out of my mind, but the intention was never to get them into
Tower Records and Sam Goody. We sold through local independent shops
that didn't require UPCs and that's where our target audience shopped,
so it was fine.

so how do you feel about those that have taken your work and not paid
for it?
or "I got paid upfront to record so it's not my problem"
George

We put out the records to help get some new artists established. I've
still got piles of CDs that didn't get sold, so if the ones that did
get out into the world are being shared and people are taking interest
in our bands, then I'm somewhat happy. I'd be happier if I had
recovered the investment I made in the discs, but I didn't really
expect to make much money through CD sales. I had an interest in
seeing the bands succeed because I liked them musically and personally,
and because their success would presumably draw additional business to
my studio. Selling the plastic discs was never really supposed to be a
direct profit engine for us. Similarly, iTunes isn't a direct profit
machine for Apple. They lose a little money on it, but they sell a
****load of iPods.

There are thousands and thousands of bands in the world that pretty
much know they're going to lose money putting out an album, but they do
it anyway. Some of them do it out of purely altruistic love of music,
but a lot of them do it because it can help them build a following
which will help them bring in a larger audience to their live gigs,
presumably for more money, and they could make something on subsequent
releases too. It's more of a big-picture kind of thing.

ulysses

George wrote:

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:


I put out about ten or so releases without barcodes. I guess that
means I'm out of my mind, but the intention was never to get them into
Tower Records and Sam Goody. We sold through local independent shops
that didn't require UPCs and that's where our target audience shopped,
so it was fine.

so how do you feel about those that have taken your work and not paid
for it?
or "I got paid upfront to record so it's not my problem"
George

We put out the records to help get some new artists established. I've
still got piles of CDs that didn't get sold, so if the ones that did
get out into the world are being shared and people are taking interest
in our bands, then I'm somewhat happy. I'd be happier if I had
recovered the investment I made in the discs, but I didn't really
expect to make much money through CD sales. I had an interest in
seeing the bands succeed because I liked them musically and personally,
and because their success would presumably draw additional business to
my studio. Selling the plastic discs was never really supposed to be a
direct profit engine for us. Similarly, iTunes isn't a direct profit
machine for Apple. They lose a little money on it, but they sell a
****load of iPods.

There are thousands and thousands of bands in the world that pretty
much know they're going to lose money putting out an album, but they do
it anyway. Some of them do it out of purely altruistic love of music,
but a lot of them do it because it can help them build a following
which will help them bring in a larger audience to their live gigs,
presumably for more money, and they could make something on subsequent
releases too. It's more of a big-picture kind of thing.

ulysses

It's the difference between a
butcher shop owned by a butcher and a meat packing plant owned by
stockholders. Small businesses are better for consumers.

your statment does not support your conclusion, they appear independent
thoughts

A small store has no more "right " to exist than a huge chain, if it
serves its market it will remain, when it no longer serves its market it
will fade

You're overlooking the fact that Wal-Mart has deliberately lost money
at its small-town stores in order to drive competitors out of business.

so?
I have undercut even given away my service to prove my worth over another
sound vendor
I did not care if the other provider survived or not.


This is called "predatory pricing" and it's illegal. It's also
difficult to prosecute, especially when the "perpetrator" is the
largest company in the world and can afford their own government lobby.

then I as a miniscule business should be a easy mark for prosacution
I've done it before, and in front of the world , I will do it again

I have no desire to pay retail for fish food when I can get the same
fish food for 40% off

That's frankly because you're naive about the real long-term
consequences of your buying decisions. You think you've "done the
math" but you're overlooking what will happen to the price and
selection of fish food after all the other shops are gone. You're
overlooking what happens to your neighborhood when the unskilled
laborforce is unable to earn a living wage, is forced into multiple
part-time jobs without benefits rather than one full-time job with
benefits (a tactic the army has borrowed from Wal-Mart recently) and
when they're prohibited from unionization. You haven't included a
bunch of things in your calculation about saving 40% on your fish food.

not true, this may be true of some highly skilled profeesional that was
displaced but the guy working at wal-mart has at least as much security,
benifits, pay, as the guy working at the local drug or hardware store
the wal mart has a much better selection , they support the little leagues
and boy scouts
in short are good neighboors, just diffrent neighboors, they are employing
our brothers and mothers who could not get a job at the local "family"
operation

I disagree, people hear something they like, then go look for that
thing(cd) if you like top 40 radio you are aware that walmart carries a
excellent inventory at reasonabvle prices
but if you want the BoomTown rats you also know to not even bother with
a walmart

If Mall Wart is the only store in your town that sells CDs *at all* and
Clear Channel owns all of the radio stations that you can get decent
reception on (in other words, if you live in middle-America in a less
than large city) then you pretty much just won't be listening to the
Boomtown Rats, unless you hear "I Hate Mondays" on one of Clear
Channel's 3 local "Eighties Oldies" stations and decide to look them up
on the internet.

you way underestimate the average man, and BTW most of us have cars or know
someone who has a car and can go about anyplace we want
we are not using horse and carriage or limited to vendors within 3 miles of
our house

if a market suddenly developed in sufficent size for left handed widget,
If I was the manager of a wal mart I would make sure I had left handed
widgets
if left handed widgets did not move with sufficent profit for the sq
footage they took up, I would no longer have left handed widgets

Exactly. The problem is that the few people who do still want
left-handed widgets will not be able to buy them. This is bad for
consumers.

they will have to mail order thier widgets or buy them on the internet. it
is not like they are not avaiable, but floor space has to turn profit , for
ANY size store, if the floor space turns into storage for dead inventory, it
is no longer a store.

The internet has the potential to solve this problem, but
it also is another opportunity for a new round of consolidation with
its attendant loss of selection and choice.


lack of selection on the internet
LOL.

That's why many of us are
complaining that the largest corporations should not be the only voice
in the debate over how to shape the new model.

the best idea will attract the money, eventually the people with serious
money will own the best ideas
I would if I had serious money

George


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004

It's the difference between a
butcher shop owned by a butcher and a meat packing plant owned by
stockholders. Small businesses are better for consumers.

your statment does not support your conclusion, they appear independent
thoughts

A small store has no more "right " to exist than a huge chain, if it
serves its market it will remain, when it no longer serves its market it
will fade

You're overlooking the fact that Wal-Mart has deliberately lost money
at its small-town stores in order to drive competitors out of business.

so?
I have undercut even given away my service to prove my worth over another
sound vendor
I did not care if the other provider survived or not.


This is called "predatory pricing" and it's illegal. It's also
difficult to prosecute, especially when the "perpetrator" is the
largest company in the world and can afford their own government lobby.

then I as a miniscule business should be a easy mark for prosacution
I've done it before, and in front of the world , I will do it again

I have no desire to pay retail for fish food when I can get the same
fish food for 40% off

That's frankly because you're naive about the real long-term
consequences of your buying decisions. You think you've "done the
math" but you're overlooking what will happen to the price and
selection of fish food after all the other shops are gone. You're
overlooking what happens to your neighborhood when the unskilled
laborforce is unable to earn a living wage, is forced into multiple
part-time jobs without benefits rather than one full-time job with
benefits (a tactic the army has borrowed from Wal-Mart recently) and
when they're prohibited from unionization. You haven't included a
bunch of things in your calculation about saving 40% on your fish food.

not true, this may be true of some highly skilled profeesional that was
displaced but the guy working at wal-mart has at least as much security,
benifits, pay, as the guy working at the local drug or hardware store
the wal mart has a much better selection , they support the little leagues
and boy scouts
in short are good neighboors, just diffrent neighboors, they are employing
our brothers and mothers who could not get a job at the local "family"
operation

I disagree, people hear something they like, then go look for that
thing(cd) if you like top 40 radio you are aware that walmart carries a
excellent inventory at reasonabvle prices
but if you want the BoomTown rats you also know to not even bother with
a walmart

If Mall Wart is the only store in your town that sells CDs *at all* and
Clear Channel owns all of the radio stations that you can get decent
reception on (in other words, if you live in middle-America in a less
than large city) then you pretty much just won't be listening to the
Boomtown Rats, unless you hear "I Hate Mondays" on one of Clear
Channel's 3 local "Eighties Oldies" stations and decide to look them up
on the internet.

you way underestimate the average man, and BTW most of us have cars or know
someone who has a car and can go about anyplace we want
we are not using horse and carriage or limited to vendors within 3 miles of
our house

if a market suddenly developed in sufficent size for left handed widget,
If I was the manager of a wal mart I would make sure I had left handed
widgets
if left handed widgets did not move with sufficent profit for the sq
footage they took up, I would no longer have left handed widgets

Exactly. The problem is that the few people who do still want
left-handed widgets will not be able to buy them. This is bad for
consumers.

they will have to mail order thier widgets or buy them on the internet. it
is not like they are not avaiable, but floor space has to turn profit , for
ANY size store, if the floor space turns into storage for dead inventory, it
is no longer a store.

The internet has the potential to solve this problem, but
it also is another opportunity for a new round of consolidation with
its attendant loss of selection and choice.


lack of selection on the internet
LOL.

That's why many of us are
complaining that the largest corporations should not be the only voice
in the debate over how to shape the new model.

the best idea will attract the money, eventually the people with serious
money will own the best ideas
I would if I had serious money

George


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004

"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
m...
George wrote:

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:


I put out about ten or so releases without barcodes. I guess that
means I'm out of my mind, but the intention was never to get them into
Tower Records and Sam Goody. We sold through local independent shops
that didn't require UPCs and that's where our target audience shopped,
so it was fine.

so how do you feel about those that have taken your work and not paid
for it?
or "I got paid upfront to record so it's not my problem"
George

We put out the records to help get some new artists established. I've
still got piles of CDs that didn't get sold, so if the ones that did
get out into the world are being shared and people are taking interest
in our bands, then I'm somewhat happy. I'd be happier if I had
recovered the investment I made in the discs, but I didn't really
expect to make much money through CD sales. I had an interest in
seeing the bands succeed because I liked them musically and personally,
and because their success would presumably draw additional business to
my studio. Selling the plastic discs was never really supposed to be a
direct profit engine for us. Similarly, iTunes isn't a direct profit
machine for Apple. They lose a little money on it, but they sell a
****load of iPods.

There are thousands and thousands of bands in the world that pretty
much know they're going to lose money putting out an album, but they do
it anyway. Some of them do it out of purely altruistic love of music,
but a lot of them do it because it can help them build a following
which will help them bring in a larger audience to their live gigs,
presumably for more money, and they could make something on subsequent
releases too. It's more of a big-picture kind of thing.

and your have the right to do with your music what you want
sell it for 1000$ a disc or give it away by the container load

others want to make money
I do my business as a FOR PROFIT
you do with yours as you desire, free world and all
and fileshareing music against the artists/owners desire works HARD against
hier goal of making a living selling thier music
george


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004

"Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message
m...
George wrote:

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:


I put out about ten or so releases without barcodes. I guess that
means I'm out of my mind, but the intention was never to get them into
Tower Records and Sam Goody. We sold through local independent shops
that didn't require UPCs and that's where our target audience shopped,
so it was fine.

so how do you feel about those that have taken your work and not paid
for it?
or "I got paid upfront to record so it's not my problem"
George

We put out the records to help get some new artists established. I've
still got piles of CDs that didn't get sold, so if the ones that did
get out into the world are being shared and people are taking interest
in our bands, then I'm somewhat happy. I'd be happier if I had
recovered the investment I made in the discs, but I didn't really
expect to make much money through CD sales. I had an interest in
seeing the bands succeed because I liked them musically and personally,
and because their success would presumably draw additional business to
my studio. Selling the plastic discs was never really supposed to be a
direct profit engine for us. Similarly, iTunes isn't a direct profit
machine for Apple. They lose a little money on it, but they sell a
****load of iPods.

There are thousands and thousands of bands in the world that pretty
much know they're going to lose money putting out an album, but they do
it anyway. Some of them do it out of purely altruistic love of music,
but a lot of them do it because it can help them build a following
which will help them bring in a larger audience to their live gigs,
presumably for more money, and they could make something on subsequent
releases too. It's more of a big-picture kind of thing.

and your have the right to do with your music what you want
sell it for 1000$ a disc or give it away by the container load

others want to make money
I do my business as a FOR PROFIT
you do with yours as you desire, free world and all
and fileshareing music against the artists/owners desire works HARD against
hier goal of making a living selling thier music
george


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/2004

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
There's Bertellsman, at least for a little while, EMI, the only real
record
company of the bunch, Sony, Universal has been sold for cheap, and Warner
the same as part of a new company - whether it will still be a 'contender'
remains to be seen.

Universal has been sold for cheap? Vivendi did not buy them cheap.


Yeah it was a pretty big loss. Vivendi wants to go back to being a water
company.

Warner Musc group was sold to investors and now is a private company.


I was under the impression that there were some other 'music assets' that
they acquired too.

I think TW is trying to raise money to get back into owning actual cable in
the ground.

jb





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
There's Bertellsman, at least for a little while, EMI, the only real
record
company of the bunch, Sony, Universal has been sold for cheap, and Warner
the same as part of a new company - whether it will still be a 'contender'
remains to be seen.

Universal has been sold for cheap? Vivendi did not buy them cheap.


Yeah it was a pretty big loss. Vivendi wants to go back to being a water
company.

Warner Musc group was sold to investors and now is a private company.


I was under the impression that there were some other 'music assets' that
they acquired too.

I think TW is trying to raise money to get back into owning actual cable in
the ground.

jb





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"George" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

George Gleason wrote:

the ads and money do not make the music ****ty

I beg to differ. That's exactly what makes the music ****ty. I can
name several dozen of my favorite bands whose music became ****ty
precisely at the moment that the ad money started rolling out.
Coincidence? I don't think so. It's really no different than a public
servant losing his identity at the moment he decides to pursue a "wider
audience."

ulysses
I respectfully disagree, the public gets the music, (and government) it
demands
George

It's not one or the other thing. I do think we are in a situation, though,
where we get to choose from red, blue and green, when there are a lot more
colors out there that never get any exposure.

jb