Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Doonesbury
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 -- 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers 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 -- It's an intresting concept that Thudpucker is putting out. I'd like to see the investment vs. return numbers for Reuban Stutter, and Kelly Clarkson before making a call on the future of recorded music. I've already heard that the LOw-Fi aspects and popularity of MP3s are killing the R&D budgets at recording equipment manufacters |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1109351826k@trad... 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 I completely agree. In fact this is what was taught to me at audio school in the more business related classes. What people have to accept is that music/information is free now. It is! If you think otherwise you are in complete denial. A business model has to be created around musicians making a living from touring, not selling music. Profit will come from ticket sales & T-Shirts/Merch. -- -hev remove "your opinion" to find me: www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. As far as audio engineers and technicians go, I think there will always be a market, but maybe not like there was. But so what? Maybe I'm too much of a socialist or something. I don't know. I'm obviously opening myself up to criticism and haven't really 100% thought through these ideas. Maybe I play too much classical music and bluegrass to care about copyrights.... Cheers, Trevor de Clercq (a musician, songwriter/composer, and audio technician) Mike Rivers 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 -- 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
nmm wrote: Mike Rivers 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 -- It's an intresting concept that Thudpucker is putting out. I'd like to see the investment vs. return numbers for Reuban Stutter, and Kelly Clarkson before making a call on the future of recorded music. I've already heard that the LOw-Fi aspects and popularity of MP3s are killing the R&D budgets at recording equipment manufacters Many years ago I conceived an idea for a band that would not produce albums; the only way to hear them would be at concerts and through bootleg recording people might make. I never got very far with the concept because the bands I'd form wouldn't last and I am a recording engineer and love the process. But at a more "local" level, many bands are doing just this. They didn't and don't have the money to make recordings so the only way to hear them is to "experience" them live. You have to go see them. The whole Thudpucker thing is really nothing new. We talked about the dynamic of how the record labels were (and continue) ripping off artists. This conversation never ends. Sinead O'Connor was quite vocal about the cost of production vs. the royalties paid to musicians being so completely out of balance that she threatened to walk away. I haven't heard much from her after the whole Pope thing years back, so I suppose in some way or another she may be sticking to her principles, maybe even doing her stuff independently. Don't know. Anyway, at the core of this argument is the fact that the bands that are stubborn enough and keep going, if they have anything at all to offer, will generally succeed in having a career -- short or long -- at a national/international level. The weeding out takes place automatically. That the record labels have their own agenda, in my opinion, that in a way they are dictating what we are going to like, what we will listen to, and for how long, is not so far fetched when you turn on the radio and listen to what's being played. Do people who have an appreciation for music actually listen to that stuff?? I wonder... --fletch |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Just caught those strips this morning; I'm really not sure what to
think. The musician (in the sense that when I am playing I wish to be an instrument of music) in me believes that what Thudpucker proposes would give rise to a lot more *good* music. However, doesn't his model leave not only the dinosaur recording/publishing industry but also the pro audio industry (that's US) out in the cold, starving to death? I imagine that I could fairly easily find a gig playing again, but I began concentrating more on engineering than musicking fifteen years ago precisely because the life of a wandering minstrel had lost its luster. Furthermore, are populations really going to be kinder to traveling musicians than the last couple of generations of clubowners? Hev suggests that music and information are the same thing; I'm not at all sure I agree. I'll give you the point that music is free now but I continue to question whether that's the way it *should* be. Your mileage will, of course, vary--I'm not trying to start a war here, just thinking out loud and bemoaning what appears to be my own unemployability . . . --Gordon Rice |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers 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 I am very ignorant when it comes to the music business. I head a local band that's met with (what I consider) moderate success. We play gigs, we sell (moderately priced) CDs and a little merchandise. I know *nothing* about the "real" music business. With that being said: Wasn't (or isn't) the whole purpose of touring to promote the record? I've always assumed that the real revenue came from CD sales and touring was there as part of the record company's marketing campaign. Aren't the rising ticket costs, merchandising, etc., methods to meliorate the cost of (and perhaps from) this particular aspect of marketing? Stu |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com... Just caught those strips this morning; I'm really not sure what to think. The musician (in the sense that when I am playing I wish to be an instrument of music) in me believes that what Thudpucker proposes would give rise to a lot more *good* music. However, doesn't his model leave not only the dinosaur recording/publishing industry but also the pro audio industry (that's US) out in the cold, starving to death? I imagine that I could fairly easily find a gig playing again, but I began concentrating more on engineering than musicking fifteen years ago precisely because the life of a wandering minstrel had lost its luster. Furthermore, are populations really going to be kinder to traveling musicians than the last couple of generations of clubowners? Hev suggests that music and information are the same thing; I'm not at all sure I agree. I'll give you the point that music is free now but I continue to question whether that's the way it *should* be. Anything that can be digitized. Music, movies, books, software, etc. They are all free at this point. The business model has to take shape around this fact. I'm not about to begin debating about how it *should be*, but I am here to tell you how it is *now*. The future just means higher bandwidth, better more transparent data compression (or bandwidth allowing no compression at all) and more users partaking. I think people will still buy CD's (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/s...315039,00.html). But I think at this point it would be wise to start offering a T-Shirt for $15 that includes a link for a downloadable version of an album or what have you. -- -hev remove "your opinion" to find me: www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Stu Venable" wrote in message
.net... Wasn't (or isn't) the whole purpose of touring to promote the record? I've always assumed that the real revenue came from CD sales and touring was there as part of the record company's marketing campaign. I expect we could see an era where CDs support the tour. The big returns will always belong to the people with the money to buy marketing. We can look forward to a golden age of huge carnival music festivals going every week, all year, so the "superstars" can haul in enough cash to pay for more layers of bling. The smaller groups and singer/songwriters will feed off the overflow, setting up secondary acts and putting out the hat. Swag tables as far as the eye can see, like supermarkets of emblematic apparel, program books and souvenire doodads. I'm going to get a Green Day toaster. dtk |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
All intellectual property should be free, huh - try selling that to
the software industry. Registered marks, trademarks, copyrights, etc. are all alive and well, it would seem, except for the music business. People who insist that these things should be free are rationalizing criminal behavior and encouraging theft. Plain and simple. A different business model for the record industry is one thing, but don't think all the blame lies with so-called 'greedy' label execs. Artists and management pushing for ever escalating advances haven't helped. Go back and study what has actually happened in the industry in the '70's and '80's. But, trying to suppress property rights is just plain communistic and shouldn't be allowed to happen in this country. Free enterprise does NOT mean that you can steal something that belongs to someone else without paying for it. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"will" wrote in message
oups.com... All intellectual property should be free, huh - try selling that to the software industry. Registered marks, trademarks, copyrights, etc. are all alive and well, it would seem, except for the music business. People who insist that these things should be free are rationalizing criminal behavior and encouraging theft. Plain and simple. I'm only commenting on the current state of information sharing via the internet. I do not view this as theft or criminal behavior and neither do the millions of people using this new technology worldwide. What we need to do is find a way to pay the creators of the information being exchanged. A great way would be a royalty type system that tracks downloads like we have for the radio. Free information exchange is here to stay and growing everyday... are you ready to accept this new way of life Will? Being stuck on the 'moral' aspects of this phenomenon is just prolonging a workable solution. -- -hev remove "your opinion" to find me: www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Stu Venable" wrote in message
.net... Wasn't (or isn't) the whole purpose of touring to promote the record? I've always assumed that the real revenue came from CD sales and touring was there as part of the record company's marketing campaign. Touring is how the band makes money, because they see so little from the records after the record company subtracts the production costs. Of course I'm talking about the bands that actually subsidize their own tours. Sean |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1109351826k@trad... 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 Trudeau is a communist? I already knew that. Sean |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Wasn't (or isn't) the whole purpose of touring to promote the record? I've always assumed that the real revenue came from CD sales and touring was there as part of the record company's marketing campaign. before records, musicians toured, edison came and the rest is being digitized. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message
... In article 1109355256.7b4ddb60f579bb554367d58cc4d74907@teran ews, says... 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. Call me crazy, but I'm not sure I totally believe in patent laws. I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas. Patents are so derivitive anyway. Why should we pay to see a movie? Why should we pay to rent a book? Directors can make their money off teaching, performing(?), just like writers. Why isn't ciruit design free? It's just artwork, right? 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. Musicians make music. TEACHERS teach, ENGINEERS engineer, etc. Just because technology has made it easy to steal a musician's work (and now film-makers as well) doesn't make it RIGHT! Neither is the ridiculous way the music and film industry has made their money. $19.99 for a CD?!? Please. The true crimes were commited AGAINST the public in the first place. This is just sweet justice. Times are changing Michael. You need to start looking at the internet like a radio that people are "taping" things off of. Royalty might be the way of the future on the internet. Why not just add a buck of tax to our internet connections and then have a royalty based system for all art forms to enjoy? -- -hev remove "your opinion" to find me: www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
These are actually Doonesbury Flash backs from a few years ago - I think
maybe they were written around the time of the Napster thing... -- Dave Martin Java Jive Studio Nashville, TN www.javajivestudio.com "Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1109351826k@trad... Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days' Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say? Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth. http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over, lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"hev" wrote in message
news:vDJTd.60838$wc.32012@trnddc07... What people have to accept is that music/information is free now. It is! If you think otherwise you are in complete denial. A business model has to be created around musicians making a living from touring, not selling music. Profit will come from ticket sales & T-Shirts/Merch. If music is free, why did I just spend all that money on the project I'm currently finishing? I guess the musicians, the arrangers, the cartage companies and the piano tuners didn't realize that it was free. -- Dave Martin DMA, Inc Nashville, TN |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"hev" wrote in message news:yEMTd.55503$Dc.52534@trnddc06... Neither is the ridiculous way the music and film industry has made their money. $19.99 for a CD?!? Please. The true crimes were commited AGAINST the public in the first place. This is just sweet justice. I don't think that's enough, either... Oh, wait - you think that 60 minutes of music aren't worth $15 or $20? Then don't buy the damn CD. But don't steal it, either. Unless you're one of those people who thinks that if something costs more than you feel like it's worth, then stealing is OK. By the way, I think that an Escalade is overpriced... Your mileage obviously varies, but I can think of many, many albums where I feel like having ONE song that I can play whenever I like to hear it is worth more than $20. Some examples come to mind right off - Brother John, from the Wild Tchapitoulas, How High the Moon from Ella Live in Berlin, Pocky Way from the Meters Live on the Queen Mary, ANY song from the Ella and Louie Armstrong records, any single song from Spike Jones is Murdering the Classics, anything recorded by Jonathan and Darlene Edwards. I could really go on for hours about single songs I think have brought me at least $20 worth of enjoyment. And for all of these records, that means that the other 10-15 songs on the record are bonuses. -- Dave Martin DMA, Inc Nashville, TN |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:15:01 -0800, Geoff Arnold
wrote: Many years ago I conceived an idea for a band that would not produce albums; the only way to hear them would be at concerts and through bootleg recording people might make. I never got very far with the concept because the bands I'd form wouldn't last and I am a recording engineer and love the process. But at a more "local" level, many bands are doing just this. They didn't and don't have the money to make recordings so the only way to hear them is to "experience" them live. You have to go see them. But people still share live tapes and MP3s, if the band has done any recording... still, as the "jam band" phenomonon shows, some bands are focusing primarily on playing live over recording, and are making decent money at it to boot. It's a healthy direction IMO. Al |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:43:05 GMT, Stu Venable
wrote: Mike Rivers 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 I am very ignorant when it comes to the music business. I head a local band that's met with (what I consider) moderate success. We play gigs, we sell (moderately priced) CDs and a little merchandise. I know *nothing* about the "real" music business. With that being said: 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. I've always assumed that the real revenue came from CD sales and touring was there as part of the record company's marketing campaign. Most bands don't make much money on sales of recordings unless they are superstars. Smaller acts are usually signed to deals that are more advantageous to the record companies than to the act. Al |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
I know your post is intended to be "satirical" but I'm not sure I
believe in patents either. You are correct in saying patents are derivative of many different sources than just the individual from whom the idea came. As far as books go, I can just go to the library and check them out for free. It's great! Who "rents" books? I understand paying for a service (like Netflix which sends you DVDs via the mail or going to a movie where you sit down in an A/C'ed room to watch on the big screen), but I can also go to the library and check out CDs, DVDs and VHS tapes for free! And that is totally legal. Also, a lot of people have software and circuit design for free. This is the whole concept behind the open source movement. And by the way, musicians teach. My family is entirely comprised of musicians and artists, all of whom teach or have taught. Your argument is akin to saying "those who can, do; those who can't, teach". Yet I took guitar lessons for two years with a national champion flatpicker. Obviously, he "could", but also taught. Some view teaching as an integral part of fulfilling ones duty and role in society. Tangible things can be stolen, but I'm not sure that you can "steal" ideas or intangible things. It's like saying you're stealing the color green. It doesn't make sense. And no, I don't think I'm entitled to your work, but neither do I think you are solely entitled to it either. I don't think anyone is entitled to ideas. Ideas are perhaps un-entitleable (if that's a word). Cheers, Trevor de Clercq Michael wrote: In article 1109355256.7b4ddb60f579bb554367d58cc4d74907@teran ews, says... 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. Call me crazy, but I'm not sure I totally believe in patent laws. I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas. Patents are so derivitive anyway. Why should we pay to see a movie? Why should we pay to rent a book? Directors can make their money off teaching, performing(?), just like writers. Why isn't ciruit design free? It's just artwork, right? 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. Musicians make music. TEACHERS teach, ENGINEERS engineer, etc. Just because technology has made it easy to steal a musician's work (and now film-makers as well) doesn't make it RIGHT! You're not entitled to the fruits of my work just because it's easy to steal. It's easy to steal oranges out of an orchard too, but it ain't right. The thieves of this world are going to make us pay for EVERYTHING on the net eventually, by their actions. People whose hard work is ripped off aren't going to stand for this forever, so eventually this Good Thing will come crashing to an expensive end. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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? That's not why I play music and that's not why a lot of people who make money making music make music. If you can earn a living, that's a bonus. It's kind of like the standard argument around here of why not get into the recording industry. If you get into recording because you want to make money, forget about it. But if you get into recording because you believe it's worth investing time, effort, and money into something like that, then go for it. Cheers, Trevor de Clercq Dave Martin wrote: "hev" wrote in message news:vDJTd.60838$wc.32012@trnddc07... What people have to accept is that music/information is free now. It is! If you think otherwise you are in complete denial. A business model has to be created around musicians making a living from touring, not selling music. Profit will come from ticket sales & T-Shirts/Merch. If music is free, why did I just spend all that money on the project I'm currently finishing? I guess the musicians, the arrangers, the cartage companies and the piano tuners didn't realize that it was free. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
hev wrote:
The future just means higher bandwidth, better more transparent data compression (or bandwidth allowing no compression at all) and more users partaking. The future a little further down the road is not like that. It's much more like the pre-petroleum past. You want bandwidth, or you want food? Pick one. -- ha |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
hev wrote:
Neither is the ridiculous way the music and film industry has made their money. $19.99 for a CD?!? Please. The true crimes were commited AGAINST the public in the first place. This is just sweet justice. Yeah, the way those poor publicians were forced to buy all that music they didn't want. I feel so sorry for their taste. What the **** is this all about? Compare the amount of material on a CD and what it costs in today's money against those figures for an LP in 1966 and get back to me about why it's way too much for the CD. Please, what a bunch of lame excuse making for theft. "Those record company assholes **** the musos so badly I'm just gonna steal the music and show 'em a thing or one..." Yeah, baby, that's some ethicality for us. Now y'all "justifiers" get to **** the musos, too, and claim it's somebody else's fault. But is that _your_ money dick doing the ****ing? My, my, my. Why not just add a buck of tax to our internet connections and then have a royalty based system for all art forms to enjoy? Oh, groovy, now we get a new tax, paid by everyone, even those who don't want the goods allegedly purchased via the tax, so that _you_ can get it cheaper? You can afford the ****ing computer but you can't afford the music? Then make some damned music of your own. No biggie. I do it often. Then there might be issues with the new middleman who will distribute this new tax... "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. But you're not bending over far enough!" -- ha |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
play_on wrote:
On 25 Feb 2005 10:32:21 -0800, wrote: I imagine that I could fairly easily find a gig playing again, but I began concentrating more on engineering than musicking fifteen years ago precisely because the life of a wandering minstrel had lost its luster. Furthermore, are populations really going to be kinder to traveling musicians than the last couple of generations of clubowners? In my personal experience the demand for live music at smaller events is evaporating. And I hear from other players that this is not a local problem, it's national. Young people now prefer DJs with dance mixes over live music. There is no tradition of live music with these people and they no longer hire bands for weddings or other functions, they just hire a guy with a pile of CDs and a sound system. Al Those DJs will be ass out of luck when the supply of new CDs dries up... I think there still is a hunger for live music. But I think our culture has "forgotten" how much we enjoy it. With the various lip-synching scandals and the crap-to-quality music ratio on the climb, I think we've gotten out of the habit of going to concerts. From my own experience: my band performs at a Renaissance Faire in So-Cal and we do three shows a day and *routinely* bring in 350-500 people per show (6-7 weekends). The response is always great. I think it's gotten to the point that live music is considered a novelty, which is sad. As far as club venues, we haven't done much of that (we've played the Galaxy in Santa Ana and we're playing the House on Blues, Anaheim in March), but I've noticed that there aren't a lot of venues out there, and many of them seem to operate on a shoestring. Most of the ones that have closed (that I know of) were shut down by their city governments for noise or some such. It wasn't from lack of attendance. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
play_on wrote:
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? Well, last album I worked on was recorded in about eighty hours, with thirty-four musicians in the band making union scale, three soloists probably making better than union scale, a conductor and a producer. Handel is dead so he didn't get paid, but the arrangers got paid some mechanicals. I probably billed a good $12k, about half of which goes for maintenance. The hall rental probably cost at least that. And I'll be surprised if more than 10,000 discs are sold. I hate to say it but that comes to a lot more than sixty cents a disk. 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 -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"hank alrich" wrote in message . .. hev wrote: Neither is the ridiculous way the music and film industry has made their money. $19.99 for a CD?!? Please. The true crimes were commited AGAINST the public in the first place. This is just sweet justice. Yeah, the way those poor publicians were forced to buy all that music they didn't want. I feel so sorry for their taste. What the **** is this all about? Compare the amount of material on a CD and what it costs in today's money against those figures for an LP in 1966 and get back to me about why it's way too much for the CD. Please, what a bunch of lame excuse making for theft. "Those record company assholes **** the musos so badly I'm just gonna steal the music and show 'em a thing or one..." Yeah, baby, that's some ethicality for us. Now y'all "justifiers" get to **** the musos, too, and claim it's somebody else's fault. But is that _your_ money dick doing the ****ing? My, my, my. Why not just add a buck of tax to our internet connections and then have a royalty based system for all art forms to enjoy? Oh, groovy, now we get a new tax, paid by everyone, even those who don't want the goods allegedly purchased via the tax, so that _you_ can get it cheaper? You can afford the ****ing computer but you can't afford the music? Then make some damned music of your own. No biggie. I do it often. Then there might be issues with the new middleman who will distribute this new tax... "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. But you're not bending over far enough!" 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. -- -Hev remove your opinion to find me he www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:09:12 -0500, Trevor de Clercq
wrote: As far as books go, I can just go to the library and check them out for free. It's great! Who "rents" books? Not only that, the book's author doesn't have to sign away everything to get published. Al |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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. Then take a quick course in how to operate a profitable business. 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. -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 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. 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. 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. 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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
I still buy CDs. After I burn a copy from a friend or listen to some
mp3s and decide it's something worth spending money on. Cheers, Trevor de Clercq Mike Rivers 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 -- 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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|