| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"play_on" wrote in message ... On 25 Feb 2005 11:29:38 -0800, "will" wrote: different business model for the record industry is one thing, but don't think all the blame lies with so-called 'greedy' label execs. CDs cost about 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are you saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists? Al You realize that a record store pays between 5 and 10 bucks for a CD, don't you? jb |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Trevor de Clercq" I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching, performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution costs, but the royalties are a weird thing. I have never once heard someone who makes a living making music, however meager that living, say they would rather be working a day job. And the funny thing is, all you guys that think there is no way to make money distributing music, whether on CD's or over the internet, are just plain wrong. jb |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
play_on wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:43:05 GMT, Stu Venable wrote: Wasn't (or isn't) the whole purpose of touring to promote the record? Not all. For many bands touring is making money. For example, ZZ Top in the early part of their career were a top concert draw, more than their record sales would suggest. They didn't have a top 40 hit until much later. The Grateful Dead of course is another example of this. Which is why the ClearChannel practice of locking down the radio promotion of concerts was such a scary development. |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Trevor de Clercq" wrote in message news:1109369904.1a047c680ceb604ebc07b305732591fc@t eranews... Because it's worth spending money on art and music for no other reason than to create quality art and music. When did people start making music solely because they wanted to make money? I think it was in ancient Greece. I know for sure it's been since the 12th century or so. jb .. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
will wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I think that $17.00 for some of the crap that passes as music today is pretty awful. I won't defend the high price of CD's. But, I've always thought that there should be a two-tiered scale for releases: one lower priced product for new artists so that they can build an audience and get some sales and one higher priced for established artists. There is: 16.98 and 17.98 (which used to be $3.98 and 4.98, which used to be...) Notice the trend of percentage differential between the two prices. Oh, and on the overall price issue: Weren't LPs 7.98 list when the CD came out at 11.98? The additional cost was allegedly due to the high pressing cost ($4-5 IIRC) and low yields from the early pressing plants (10% or more rejects.) Those production costs dropped dramatically, the artist royalty remained in the same ballpark, but the retail nearly doubled. Just some food for thought. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"reddred" wrote in message ... "Trevor de Clercq" I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching, performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution costs, but the royalties are a weird thing. I have never once heard someone who makes a living making music, however meager that living, say they would rather be working a day job. I've turned hobbies into dayjobs at least three times in my life. It never fails to ruin the hobby for me. I'm pretty sure I'm going to keep music just for fun. I am comforted that Vanilla Ice doesn't have to go get a real job, though. dtk |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hev wrote:
It isn't stealing. You just can't accept the new vehicle in which music is being delivered to the market. And because of this thinking people still aren't getting paid and still aren't utilizing what may be the best connection to their target market they have ever had in their history. It's not a "market." A market is where buyers and sellers trade a product. When people are getting something they haven't paid for and buyers are left out in the cold, there is no marketing taking place. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
play_on wrote:
On 25 Feb 2005 18:05:07 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: I'd be surprised if the label breaks even at $17. That's without even thinking of the promotion cost (which in this case is probably limited to a thousand free disks and an ad in Gramophone). Scott, will all due respect, this is example is very far from a typical modern recording. Yes, and the REASON it's very far from a typical modern recording is that it's almost completely unprofitable to do now. It is getting to the point where you very seldom hear actual rock albums tracked live because the budgets just don't extend to paying real session musicians any more. Yes, albums are being made for less and less money today, but that's not a good thing and that's not helping the musicians in any way. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Hev wrote: It isn't stealing. You just can't accept the new vehicle in which music is being delivered to the market. And because of this thinking people still aren't getting paid and still aren't utilizing what may be the best connection to their target market they have ever had in their history. It's not a "market." A market is where buyers and sellers trade a product. When people are getting something they haven't paid for and buyers are left out in the cold, there is no marketing taking place. --scott Are you sarcastically emphasizing why the industry needs to adapt or die? Or are you really that stuck on the "morals" you are accustom with to see what is happening? It is a revolution and the music industry dinosaurs don't get it! -- -Hev remove your opinion to find me he www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013 |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Feb 2005 16:38:48 -0800, "will" wrote:
play_on wrote: CDs cost about 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are you saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists? Al Oh, right. As if the record label gets all $17.00. Read up on how retail and wholesale works. Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? How modern methods of distribution are making older models obsolete? Without all the parasitic middle men, music doesn't have to be as expensive. Then take a quick course in how to operate a profitable business. Yes, we know it's easier to make money when you can sign artists to contracts that benefit the company more than the artist. Despite their whining they do continue to make profits. Meanwhile, as a result of the corporate system, popular music is filled with marginally talented, manufactured "stars". There's quite a lot of misinformation going around about all this. The record company takes ALL of the risk and pays for EVERYTHING up front- artwork, packaging, promotion, distribution, shipping, etc. - This is precisely the kind of stuff that the internet is rendering obsolete. You no longer need conventional distribution, advertising and shipping if people can download your music. and that's all BESIDE the fact that they've paid for all of the costs associated in producing that masterpiece. Then they have to wait for many months, sometimes years, to get it back. What's that business running on in that meantime? Shouldn't the label be allowed to recoup what it spent plus some interest? It is huge risk, after all and if you check out how any business works that deals with risk, you'll find they work in a similiar manner. Check out venture capitalists, for example. And how many record companies are really hurting? This used to be a multi-million dollar business, now it's a multi-billion dollar business. And another thing - if the artist bombs he walks away. Who pays for that? Because the label retains ownership of the product they might be able to offset some of the loss by selling that product as cut-outs, but that doesn't bring in much. Now figure in just how many artists actually have a positive sales record over how many actually are signed and muItiply this over and over. Is this making any sense to you? You're an artist and you want to play the game but don't have any money - fine, but it's going to cost you on the backside of the deal. Right... and how many artists have money? Otherwise, do it yourself and you pay for everything. But you won't have the benefit of the marketing, distribution, promotion, product availability, etc. that the label provides to the artist. Yep... but as I said before, this role of the record company becomes less and less crucial as the delivery of music via broadband becomes ascendant. One of the big problems is that many in artist management (and many artists) want that big advance. If the market went to paying for what actually sold - after it sold - it'd be a very different game. Mostly because you'd be dealing in real numbers. But, management has fought that tooth and nail over the years because they'd have to wait to get paid and possibly they wouldn't get paid as much. And they don't have to pay for recoupment - the artist does. Free money for management at the expense of the artist! That's only one part of the story, but an important one. Don't get me wrong, I think that $17.00 for some of the crap that passes as music today is pretty awful. I won't defend the high price of CD's. But, I've always thought that there should be a two-tiered scale for releases: one lower priced product for new artists so that they can build an audience and get some sales and one higher priced for established artists. It's already evolved into that, since many new artists voluntarily offer their music online for free. But, even with the higher price I will buy releases of artists that I like and believe in. They are getting something from that sale which they wouldn't if I stole it on the internet. I support artists I like too. But being an older guy I buy very few CDs by newer artists, and much of what I do buy is older music. I *really* resent having to pay high CD prices for old-time music by artists who are long dead. I often illegally download new music that I hear a buzz about, just to check it out. I'm not into paying $17 just to try something, especially when the odds are about 10 to 1 that I won't like it. If I do like the music, then I might spend the money on it, but I'm not going to pay those kind of prices just to stay informed about current acts. But I'm not the problem. The problem is people like my stepdaughter who doesn't have the money to pay $17 for a CD just to hear the one song she likes... so she downloads the one song for free instead. Paying for music is a foreign concept for her. Kids like her are the challenge that the record companies have to face. Al |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Feb 2005 20:12:06 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote: In article writes: CDs cost about 60 cents to make Not everyone is like you, recording yourself with equipment that cost you noting, ??? My equipment was free??? and having a living income so you don't have to work while you're making that 60 cent CD. I don't quit follow your logic Mike. FYI, what I live on would be starvation wages for most people, I barely get by, OK? I'm a musician for chrissake. Recording is a hobby for me more than a commercial enterprise. Al |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hev wrote: Are you sarcastically emphasizing why the industry needs to adapt or die? Or are you really that stuck on the "morals" you are accustom with to see what is happening? It is a revolution and the music industry dinosaurs don't get it! "We have rudiments of reverence for the human body, but we consider as nothing the rape of the human mind." -Eric Hoffer |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:58:07 -0500, "reddred"
wrote: "play_on" wrote in message .. . On 25 Feb 2005 11:29:38 -0800, "will" wrote: different business model for the record industry is one thing, but don't think all the blame lies with so-called 'greedy' label execs. CDs cost about 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are you saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists? Al You realize that a record store pays between 5 and 10 bucks for a CD, don't you? I thought that was the point of this discussion -- that the middlemen are fast becoming obsolete, thanks to the internet. What's your point? Why should I support the record labels, distributors, and stores over the artist, if I can buy directly from the artist? Al |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:06:09 -0500, "reddred"
wrote: "Trevor de Clercq" wrote in message news:1109369904.1a047c680ceb604ebc07b305732591fc@ teranews... Because it's worth spending money on art and music for no other reason than to create quality art and music. When did people start making music solely because they wanted to make money? I think it was in ancient Greece. I know for sure it's been since the 12th century or so. jb I'm not sure where you get your information, but until fairly recently trained musicians made money only at the whim of their royal patrons, or other supporters. In the case of indigenous people, music was and is made as an integrated part of culture, not for profit. Al |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to
remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are." -Ayn Rand http://www.working-minds.com/money.htm |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Feb 2005 21:32:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
play_on wrote: On 25 Feb 2005 18:05:07 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: I'd be surprised if the label breaks even at $17. That's without even thinking of the promotion cost (which in this case is probably limited to a thousand free disks and an ad in Gramophone). Scott, will all due respect, this is example is very far from a typical modern recording. Yes, and the REASON it's very far from a typical modern recording is that it's almost completely unprofitable to do now. That is one reason. The other reason is that it's no longer neccessary to spend very much money to make a pop record. It is getting to the point where you very seldom hear actual rock albums tracked live because the budgets just don't extend to paying real session musicians any more. But kids mostly don't want to hear that sound anymore anyway. They like acts like Moby, who just uses midi and sampling to cut and paste stuff together. Same thing with most R & B and Rap music. Yes, albums are being made for less and less money today, but that's not a good thing and that's not helping the musicians in any way. Sure. However the people who are buying most of the recordings today could care less if there are live musicians on the record... or even if there are live musicians at the nightclub. Al |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
"play_on" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:58:07 -0500, "reddred" wrote: "play_on" wrote in message .. . On 25 Feb 2005 11:29:38 -0800, "will" wrote: different business model for the record industry is one thing, but don't think all the blame lies with so-called 'greedy' label execs. CDs cost about 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are you saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists? Al You realize that a record store pays between 5 and 10 bucks for a CD, don't you? I thought that was the point of this discussion -- that the middlemen are fast becoming obsolete, thanks to the internet. What's your point? Why should I support the record labels, distributors, and stores over the artist, if I can buy directly from the artist? If you can, by all means. There are direct sales from artists, and several innovative distribution businesses that might become viable if people like what they have to offer. But artists aren't exactly signing up with them in droves. The bulk of sales revenue for the music arms of the media companies still comes from CD sales. Actually, almost all of it does. They need the best buys and the walmarts and the record strores to distribute those products. If they undercut on pricing with digital sales, the distributors become very unhappy. So whatever the model, expect to see competitive pricing. I was merely pointing out that you haven't had to pay 17 bucks for a cd in quite some time. Bear in mind that Amazon is also part of what you are talking about. jb |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
"play_on" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:06:09 -0500, "reddred" wrote: "Trevor de Clercq" wrote in message news:1109369904.1a047c680ceb604ebc07b305732591fc@ teranews... Because it's worth spending money on art and music for no other reason than to create quality art and music. When did people start making music solely because they wanted to make money? I think it was in ancient Greece. I know for sure it's been since the 12th century or so. jb I'm not sure where you get your information, but until fairly recently trained musicians made money only at the whim of their royal patrons, or other supporters. In the case of indigenous people, music was and is made as an integrated part of culture, not for profit. Bull****. There has always been pop music and the musicians have always had to sing for their supper. Just because you don't read about it in Beethoven class doesn't mean it wasn't there. Go listen to Bernart de Ventadorn. You will find many of the same themes and musical structures that are in the top 40 today. In 'primitive' societies, music was also divided into sacred music ('high art') and popular music. In west Africa, the popular musicians would travel from town to town and trade their services for food or goods. These things will never really change. Only occasionally in a society is there an upper class wealthy enough to support 'fine art'. But the people's demand for music is continuous. jb |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dt king" wrote in message ... "reddred" wrote in message ... "Trevor de Clercq" I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching, performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution costs, but the royalties are a weird thing. I have never once heard someone who makes a living making music, however meager that living, say they would rather be working a day job. I've turned hobbies into dayjobs at least three times in my life. It never fails to ruin the hobby for me. I'm pretty sure I'm going to keep music just for fun. I am comforted that Vanilla Ice doesn't have to go get a real job, though. I've made similair decisions. I don't want to be so arrogant as to make those decisions for other people, though. jb |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Martin" wrote: These are actually Doonesbury Flash backs from a few years ago Gary Trudeau injured his drawing arm, so the strip's in reruns until he heals up. -- Jonathan Roberts * guitar, keyboards, vocals * North River Preservation ---------------------------------------------- To reach me reverse: moc(dot)xobop(at)ggestran |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
play_on wrote:
CDs cost about 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are you saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists? That's funny. I bought a CD that cost me almost a grand. Had some kind of software on it. Was I ripped off? The cost of the plastic is irrelevant, yeah? What's the paper worth in a Hemingway novel, compared to the words on the paper? -- ha |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
play_on wrote:
Scott, will all due respect, this is example is very far from a typical modern recording. Yeah, for those they spend way more than sixty cents. And lots of them, IMO, have music on 'em that's worth less than the cost of the raw materials in the packaging. But it's silly to think the cost of a record is reflected in the cost of the plastic disc. -- ha |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
play_on wrote:
The other reason is that it's no longer neccessary to spend very much money to make a pop record. Got any idea what Clearemountain or the Alge's get to mix a track? It ain't chump change. -- ha |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hev wrote:
It isn't stealing. Bull****. You just can't accept the new vehicle in which music is being delivered to the market. I deliver music in my own local market by playing it live, in person, repeatedly. That puts me in charge of the delivery medium, not waiting around for some thief with cheap Internet access to download my body and axe. And because of this thinking people still aren't getting paid and still aren't utilizing what may be the best connection to their target market they have ever had in their history. And how much control do they have over that target market if the market is a bunch of thieves? People aren't getting paid because some folks think they're not stealing music they listen to without paying for it. And they come up with all kinds of excuses to justify their behavior. So much for personal responsibility. How dearly American; it's all somebody else's fault. Again, bull****. On top of that, those channels are controlled ultimately by the same kind of business avariciousities who run record companies. You just watch how much money flows to the creators of music once the FlyTunes Internet Record Company gets its cut. -- ha |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hev wrote:
It is a revolution The cheapest word in marketing, and you just bought it. -- ha |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
"hank alrich" wrote in message
.. . Hev wrote: It isn't stealing. Bull****. Not bull****. Learn to deal with it. And how much control do they have over that target market if the market is a bunch of thieves? They aren't thieves. They are using the tools of their generation just as all generations past. The difference is this time around the industry seems to be adapting late. People aren't getting paid because some folks think they're not stealing music they listen to without paying for it. And they come up with all kinds of excuses to justify their behavior. No excuses. People aren't getting paid because of this outdated thinking. At this point I equate the scenario to trying to prevent teens to have sex by telling them it is wrong. Keep standing there in your wife beater with newspaper rolled in hand. -- -Hev remove your opinion to find me he www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013 |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
"hank alrich" wrote in message ... Hev wrote: It is a revolution The cheapest word in marketing, and you just bought it. Hook, line and sinker. It is a digital revolution and I intend to ride it. Keep trying to find the analog tape... -- -Hev remove your opinion to find me he www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013 |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Hev" wrote in message... It isn't stealing. Your are SOOOOO WRONG. Sure, you can say you weren't the one who put the song from the CD on the web.... but as long as it's there, you might as well take it, right? Or was it you who pirated the CD to start with? Nah.... it's cats like you and 'play-on' (in this case) who just take it because it's there. Justify it any way you like, but it really doesn't hold up... and laying the blame on a new 'technology' for making mass-theft possible and telling everyone they should just "get used to it" is a real chicken **** excuse to promote even more theft. slinking back under my rock... -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Hev" wrote in message ... "hank alrich" wrote in message .. . Hev wrote: It isn't stealing. Bull****. Not bull****. Learn to deal with it. And how much control do they have over that target market if the market is a bunch of thieves? They are using the tools of their generation just as all generations past. Bull****... they're abusing the tools... there's a big difference. The difference is this time around the industry seems to be adapting late. The industry didn't expect rampant piracy of intellectual property. People aren't getting paid because some folks think they're not stealing music they listen to without paying for it. People aren't getting paid because of this outdated thinking. What outdated thinking? That I own a piece of merchandise? At this point I equate the scenario to trying to prevent teens to have sex by telling them it is wrong. What you're saying in this analogy, is just give them rubbers (the internet) or the pill (lack of self control) and let them **** all day instead of learn. You're of a mind that it's not stealing because it can be found on your precious new internet.... but just remember, some ******* put it there illegally to start with, and taking it makes you a part of the crime. |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
"hev" wrote in message... The true crimes were commited AGAINST the public in the first place. I won't ask you to explain that, because I don't want to task your rationale. This is just sweet justice. Somehow, getting ****ed up the ass just doesn't seem to be really sweet. If you think theft is justice, your brain is pickled. |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
"play_on" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:14:08 -0500, Trevor de Clercq wrote: Call me crazy, but I'm not even sure I totally believe in copyright laws. I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas or intangible things like chord progressions or voicings in a specific song or arrangement. Music is so derivative anyway I feel noone can claim the complete right of ownership to a recording or composition because so much in any recording or composition is stolen from hundreds of other recordings or compositions. Absolutely correct. Even the great classical composers ripped off folk melodies with abandon. Al C'mon Al, even Bethoven was paid for his compositions by the Royal court. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
play_on wrote:
On 25 Feb 2005 16:38:48 -0800, "will" wrote: play_on wrote: This is precisely the kind of stuff that the internet is rendering obsolete. You no longer need conventional distribution, advertising and shipping if people can download your music. Yes, we know how wonderfully profitable it is to have people download your music and pay NOTHING for it. That hardly qualifies as a new paradigm for sales - sales requires someone pays something for a product. Perhaps you meant that this is a new paradigm for theft, but then theivery is still the same as it ever was. Otherwise, do it yourself and you pay for everything. But you won't have the benefit of the marketing, distribution, promotion, product availability, etc. that the label provides to the artist. Yep... but as I said before, this role of the record company becomes less and less crucial as the delivery of music via broadband becomes ascendant. If you want to talk about iTunes or that type of model then there may be hope, yet. Otherwise you have random third party people ripping music off of CD's and posting it on the internet for anybody to steal. That's a lot like stealing someone's laundry from the clothesline in their backyard and taking it to the public square and posting a sign that says 'Free Take Some'. Would that be legal in your 'property should be free' world? It's already evolved into that, since many new artists voluntarily offer their music online for free. If an artist wants to post THEIR OWN music and make it available for free, fine. Just don't tell me that ANYBODY should be allowed to take what they want from anybody with no consequence. I support artists I like too. But being an older guy I buy very few CDs by newer artists, and much of what I do buy is older music. I *really* resent having to pay high CD prices for old-time music by artists who are long dead. Oh, and I suppose you also object to buying a book by Ernest Hemingway and having to pay the bookseller full price for that? Since when did anybody offer discounts because the writers or artist was dead? Or do you think you're going to get an Andy Warhol work for less money because he's dead? Grow up. I often illegally download new music that I hear a buzz about, just to check it out. I'm not into paying $17 just to try something, especially when the odds are about 10 to 1 that I won't like it. If I do like the music, then I might spend the money on it, but I'm not going to pay those kind of prices just to stay informed about current acts. But I'm not the problem. The problem is people like my stepdaughter who doesn't have the money to pay $17 for a CD just to hear the one song she likes... so she downloads the one song for free instead. Paying for music is a foreign concept for her. Kids like her are the challenge that the record companies have to face. There are plenty of promotional sites around that allow you to hear fairly long clips of new artists so that you can make that decision. There's plenty of ways for people to hear new artists and it's getting better. But, there's a huge difference between wanting to hear a new artist before buying a CD and just stealing their music. BTW, I'm an older guy, too, but I've also been the artist and the producer and the publisher and the engineer and the record label , sometimes in multiple capacities at different times in my career. But, from your posts I suspect that you haven't been in the position of having money taken out of YOUR pocket by the theiving behavior you support. Otherwise I don't think you'd be so quick to support stealing. Your new paradigm seems to be: I can steal from you and as long as I don't suffer any economic consequences it's perfectly acceptable to me. Pickpockets, con men and ordinary thieves have used just that paradigm since time immemorial, Bucko. Go sell your Brooklyn Bridge to someone else. By the way, when I was a kid I saved up money until I had enough to buy that new album. You might have done the same thing, if you're an older guy. I didn't feel that I had the RIGHT to have things that I couldn't afford, no matter how much I may have wanted them. A lot of kids today have this chip on their shoulder - they have this attitude that they're ENTITLED to have things that they can't afford or can't handle. Yeah, it's a new day, baby. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Trevor de Clercq" wrote in message
news:1109355256.7b4ddb60f579bb554367d58cc4d74907@t eranews... Call me crazy, but I'm not even sure I totally believe in copyright laws. Are you a musician or songwriter (in a professional sense)? |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think you don't see people who win the lottery go back to working a
day job either, but that doesn't mean it's right. Selfishness and greed usually cause people to drop out of contributing in a positive way to society once they don't have to anymore. I don't understand how our society rewards musicians who perhaps make one or two musical offerings (i.e. albums) and are able to retire on these earnings. Are those people really musicians at the end of the day, anyway? I'm not saying someone who is a musician should be working a day job (like in a factory), but there should be a strong incentive for them to teach, thereby giving back to the musical community. Performing is also a fine way to make a living. Cheers, Trevor de Clercq reddred wrote: "Trevor de Clercq" I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching, performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution costs, but the royalties are a weird thing. I have never once heard someone who makes a living making music, however meager that living, say they would rather be working a day job. And the funny thing is, all you guys that think there is no way to make money distributing music, whether on CD's or over the internet, are just plain wrong. jb |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article znr1109351826k@trad, wrote:
Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days' Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say? Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth. http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html That sound effect they put on that page is incredibly annoying. -- Jedd Haas - Artist http://www.gallerytungsten.com http://www.epsno.com |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not sure what the difference between a musician and a songwriter is,
but I would consider myself to be both. I have a bachelor's degree in music theory/composition from Cornell and a master's degree in music technology from NYU. I've worked as a senior technician at Right Track for a couple years and am now employed as the on-staff technician for the audio and video studios at the New School. I also have an Associate's degree in electronics (as a lark, but it was fun to learn about actual "engineering" as opposed to your average "recording engineer" who usually doesn't understand what a resistor is, sadly). I play piano, cello, guitar, mandolin, bass, and sing all pretty well. I also play a little banjo, violin, drums and pedal steel but only in a mild sense. I've been producing about an album every other year, all of which are freely downloadable from my web site (www.midside.com). My version of "Silent Night" was used as diagetic music in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11". I didn't receive a penny. I don't intend to sue him. I guess I'm not a full-time "professional" musician right now, but it wouldn't be that hard to switch over. I've taught guitar lessons off and on over the years and once had Mel Bay buy my transcription of a Dan Crary album. As I said in a previous post, my mother, brother, grandmother, and grandfather all are/were full-time professional musicians. My father is a full-time artist. All of them teach or have taught and perform or performed as part of their income. Right now I'm exploring the recording/technical side of music. For what it's worth, I plan on applying to PhD programs for composition in the fall. If I had the server bandwidth to do it, I'd love to put all my music up in its unmixed multi-track form. I wish albums were available like that for the public. It would be a great learning tool, like viewing the score to a symphony. In the back of my mind I think I'd like in the future (when bandwidth becomes more available), to start an "open-source" music project where artists can post the multi-track versions of their albums for people to download. Cheers, Trevor de Clercq Ricky Hunt wrote: "Trevor de Clercq" wrote in message news:1109355256.7b4ddb60f579bb554367d58cc4d74907@t eranews... Call me crazy, but I'm not even sure I totally believe in copyright laws. Are you a musician or songwriter (in a professional sense)? |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
And is probably at least 20 times worse, quality-of-music-wise.
Cheers, Trevor de Clercq Mike Rivers wrote: In article writes: Scott, will all due respect, this is example is very far from a typical modern recording. Yeah. A typical modern recording costs 20 times more. But probably sells a little better. -- 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 |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Linear Mode
