Re: Jobs says there's no money in online music

[George Gleason]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> George > wrote:
>
> > My general experiance is that making things cheaper does not make
> > them more profitable maybe more affordable but not more profitable
> > at 99 cents this is well below what the market will support, we just
> > need to have a product people find value in when you can still "file
> > share " music what is the point in paying for it stopping free file
> > sharing should be the highest priority in the music industry at this
> > time only once we stop giving away what is not ours to give will
> > people reluctantly begin paying what it is worth
>
> This is not what's happening at all though. There's no shortage of
> people paying for downloads. Jobs wasn't lamenting a lack of business.
> He was only saying that he wasn't making a net profit on that business.
>
> > only once we stop giving away what is not ours to give will
> > people reluctantly begin paying what it is worth
>
> Wrong, it has proven to be the other way around. Only once they
> started charging money for what people want did they stop taking it for
> free. It's true there are still people filesharing but that has not
> been an obstacle to the success of paid downloads whatsoever.
>
I disagree
I ALWAYS look for the freeware or share ware before shelling out for the
full price version it works the same for music
george

[EggHd]

<< I ALWAYS look for the freeware or share ware before shelling out for the
full price version it works the same for music >>

Right. It's called radio, video, personal appreances and TV appearances by the
artists.

Add to that the listening station at many retailers.

There are many ways to preview music before deciding to buy.



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

[P Stamler]

Hey, how a company makes its money isn't always obvious. McDonald's doesn't
make anything on hamburgers; they're basically a soda stand selling burgers as
loss leaders to make people thirsty.

Peace,
Paul

[reddred]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << So now it's time to pass the savings to the artists that make the music
> happen. >>
>
> Explain.
>

If the cost of distribution is near zero, and in the case of electronic
distribution that's the case, then artists contracts should reflect that.
I'm under the impression that while a record company may save money on
'e-distribution', the artists are actually seeing less of the proceeds from
it.

jb

[Nathan West]

EggHd wrote:

> I believe it bodes very well. THRY have cut out the traditional retail store.
> THEY don't have to do artwork etc.

People are still doing Art, but you have an option to download it or not.

> PLUS they are mainly selling catalog which
> makes it even more profitable.

Everyone sells mostly catolog don't they?

--
Cheers and All
Nathan

" Elementary chaos theory tells us that all of Cakewalk will eventually turn
against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the biting
with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving."
-Professor Frink

[reddred]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << So now it's time to pass the savings to the artists that make the music
> happen. >>
>
> Explain.
>

Oh, nevermind. 12 percent is pretty good, if the itunes scale is comparable.
But it would be interesting to know if this is being held from artists who
haven't recouped costs - the costs here are lower.

jb

[Nathan West]

reddred wrote:

> I believe him. Just imagine the overhead. The music is a promo for ipods.
> What's wrong with selling ipods?

Nothing is wrong with it. But the overhead of online music sales is very small
compared to ramping up for a hardware run. It maybe that hardware has a more
obvious revenue/fixed cost flow than music does, which in turn might be a bit
more attractive to Apple.
But I think something else is afoot here, and it smells like a accounting move
to adjust for the stock holders at the quarters close.
--
Cheers and All
Nathan

" Elementary chaos theory tells us that all of Cakewalk will eventually turn
against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the
biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving."
-Professor Frink

[EggHd]

<< But it would be interesting to know if this is being held from artists who
haven't recouped costs - the costs here are lower. >>

How can a label recoup costs that aren't there?



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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Hey, how a company makes its money isn't always obvious. McDonald's doesn't
> make anything on hamburgers; they're basically a soda stand selling burgers as
> loss leaders to make people thirsty.

I guess that's why sodas cost more than the hamburgers, and why when I
ask for a cup for water, I get one about the size of a shot glass.



--
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[reddred]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << But it would be interesting to know if this is being held from artists
who
> haven't recouped costs - the costs here are lower. >>
>
> How can a label recoup costs that aren't there?
>

My point exactly.

jb

[Julian Standen]

Do you think this Apple move might have a negative effect long term on
the industry?

I was thinking of the selling soda analogy above and wondering appart
from Ipods what Apple can sell along with music... and then I thought,
you cant see a picture of Mariah Cary on an Ipod...

Sex sells....

Can you sell sex on an Ipod?

MP3 players with "picures" or videos HAVE to be next.

Cheery thought! People get mugged al the time for cel phones here in
Europe, I wonder if Imuggers will emerge, the white headphone cords
are a dead give-a-way.

Toodles!

[Les Cargill]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "reddred" > wrote in message
>
> > "Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Nathan West wrote:
> >>
> >>> Artie Turner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Now this is sad: even at 99 cents per tune, Jobs can't show a
> >>>> profit with online music. I had high hopes for iTunes, but it
> >>>> looks like the music has just become a gimmick to sell iPods and
> >>>> sugar water.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't believe him for a minute. He would of know the deal going
> >>> into it before he signed Apple to be a distributor. Maybe he is
> >>> looking for a write off and is setting it up now.
> >>
> >> Maybe he's looking to discourage potential competitors from entering
> >> the market?
> >>
> >
> > I believe him. Just imagine the overhead. The music is a promo for
> > ipods. What's wrong with selling ipods?
>
> I believe that this analysis agrees with the ones currently being published
> in the business trade magazines. Apple is setting up a new line of
> business - portable media players. They need a legitiamte source of program
> material for their players to play.

And King Gillette is rolling in his grave.
--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:
>
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
> > I just odn't think he had a lot of margin left, after paying for the
> > Internet infrastructure to support iTunes. Same error as always - people
> > underestimate the plant costs.
>
> I didn't get the impression that Jobs ever underestimated anything. He
> said that there's no money in online distribution. He didn't say he
> just found this out though.

Point well taken.

> My understanding is he knew going into the
> deal that it wasn't a money maker, but that he could sell a giant pile
> of iPods if he made content for them widely available. Which is what
> he's doing.
>

So he's giving the blades away, and selling the razors? Ummmm....

> ulysses


--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Andrea wrote:
>
> (EggHd) wrote in message >...
> > << Royalties for the song composition itself
> > are something around 7¢ a song. Credit card fees are what, 3 or 4%. So how
> > much are the royalties for the recording? >>
> >
> > The artist royalty will be the same % they normally get. 16 to 24% depening on
> > the deal the artist made (and how much leverage they had when making the deal)
> >
> > << Either:
> > 1. the record companies are making out like bandits >>
> >
> > What is the apple cut and the record company cut? Remember this is just a
> > another retailer. the record company still has to market the record to the
> > public, the single most expense in the record biz.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------
> > "I know enough to know I don't know enough"
>
> Here is the link to that pie chart, Apple, according to the pie chart
> was supposed to get 40% of the 99cent downloads, the artist only gets
> 12%.
>
> Who did Apple forfeit thier 40% share of the proceeds to?
>
> http://www.deeperwants.com/cul1/homeworlds/journal/archives/001645.html
>
> It is a horrible,inhumane,and sucky deal for the artist to only get
> 12%, without the artists, they would have nothing to sell.
> Andrea

12% isn't bad ROI for anybody, even if the artists contributed 100% of
the capital to get it. A good accountant can lay out all the capital as
expenses, which are like promissory notes on other revenue.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

reddred wrote:
>
> "EggHd" > wrote in message
> ...
> > << So now it's time to pass the savings to the artists that make the music
> > happen. >>
> >
> > Explain.
> >
>
> If the cost of distribution is near zero,

.... if only...

> and in the case of electronic
> distribution that's the case, then artists contracts should reflect that.
> I'm under the impression that while a record company may save money on
> 'e-distribution', the artists are actually seeing less of the proceeds from
> it.

I think this remains to be seen.

>
> jb


--
Les Cargill

[EggHd]

<< Do you think this Apple move might have a negative effect long term on
the industry? >>

It's a new type of retailer. The industry is already hurting from piracy so
this can only help.



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

[DrBoom]

(Tom Paul) wrote in message >...

[Magnatune rules]

> I really hope magnatune a lot of success in starting a new path to the
> market.

Well, I've bought a couple of albums from them and plan to buy more.
No bogus DRM, nice choice of formats, fair pricing, good karma -- what's
not to like, aside from wishing for a bigger catalog?

Preview tracks are the key to sales, I think. Baen Books seems to think
freebies are good for book sales too:

http://www.baen.com/library/

They've been doing it for years now, so it must be working for them.
One of the points they make is that there will always be a place for
editors since they perform a valuable service in separating the wheat
from the chaff. Music publishers, if they are truly doing their jobs
instead of just trying to cash in on the next trend, have a place too
for the same reason.

-DrBoom

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(Julian Standen) wrote:

> MP3 players with "picures" or videos HAVE to be next.

Once you get to the point where memory is cheaper and more efficient I
think it is inevitable that you'll have a sitution where you'll be
downloading some new file format that has the audio AND a video of some
kind to go along with it.

I think you're absolutely correct that audio/video iPod-style delivery
is the next logical step.

When I can work out on the stairmaster at my gym while watching "U2 Live
From Boston", that'll be a really cool day.

CT

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,

Andrea wrote:
> > It is a horrible,inhumane,and sucky deal for the artist to only get
> > 12%, without the artists, they would have nothing to sell.

I'm sure egghead will address this better than I could, but 12% is HUGE.
I'd be thrilled to get 12% of the money when Apple has to deal with
marketing (through the iTunes website and advertising in other media)
and distribution.

What comparable music-distribution deal can you point to where an artist
gets more?

CT

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << Do you think this Apple move might have a negative effect long term on
> the industry? >>
>
> It's a new type of retailer. The industry is already hurting from piracy so
> this can only help.

Amen.

Again, I think too many people forget what they're comparing. The
comparison isn't "iTunes or buying the CD in a store". Those days are
gone. The comparison is now "iTunes or download it illegally for free".

Which do you think is better for the music industry?

CT

[Artie Turner]

Charles Thomas wrote:
> In article >,
>
> Andrea wrote:
>
>>>It is a horrible,inhumane,and sucky deal for the artist to only get
>>>12%, without the artists, they would have nothing to sell.
>
>
> I'm sure egghead will address this better than I could, but 12% is HUGE.
> I'd be thrilled to get 12% of the money when Apple has to deal with
> marketing (through the iTunes website and advertising in other media)
> and distribution.
>
> What comparable music-distribution deal can you point to where an artist
> gets more?

I'll admit I'm not familiar with the terms of the iTunes/Big Labels
deal, (I'm not sure the terms were made public) but the way Steven St.
Croix described it in a recent Mix, Apple just paid a big lump sum up
front to use a limited part of the labels' catalogs.

How the labels redistributed that lump sum to the individual copyright
owners/artists is anybody's guess.

AT
>
> CT

[EggHd]

<< I'm sure egghead will address this better than I could, but 12% is HUGE.
I'd be thrilled to get 12% of the money when Apple has to deal with
marketing (through the iTunes website and advertising in other media)
and distribution. >>

I'm only going by what I am reading which is not that complete.





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

[Roger W. Norman]

Actually there's probably more than enough money to go around, once the idea
comes about that there's more music out there than the majors represent.
Let's face it, in times of old would Britney have sold 23 million albums?
Today would the Beatles have sold 23 million albums? It depends on what's
being hyped, doesn't it? If we start talking about indies going million
sellers then we'd be talking about something. And then there's probably
some money in it, as Mr. Jobs seems to argue against.

Yeah, what's needed is an all ecompassing distribution method and yes, just
as certainly, it doesn't include all the majors anymore. After all, since
they aren't signing up new talent, they don't any longer have the strangle
hold on new talent, and they have a specific amount of time that their
copyrights still hold. The beginning of the end for the majors, and I
daresay, the beginning of music as artists. A true beginning of musicians
as artists. No contracts and no patrons. Everybody gets to say what they
want.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> Roger W. Norman > wrote:
>
> > "Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The trick to making this thing profitable will have to be cutting out
> > > the middle-men, or at least reducing the cut that goes to the middle
> > > men.
> >
> > So you'd relegate Apple to an Indie label distribution house? You can't
cut
> > out the middleman on Bruce Springsteen or Little Richard unless they've
> > recouped their rights to the songs, as in the Eagles members thing about
> > their songs. So if you bypass the majors, you don't have major artists,
or
> > you have catalog that is old and been through the "another format" wars
so
> > much that people no longer want to purchase. Makes no sense to me to
even
> > view the problem that way.
>
> What about new artists who haven't gotten themselves entangled with a
> label yet? Couldn't they become "major artists"? And I wasn't
> necessarily suggesting that Apple specifically cut the labels out. Why
> couldn't the labels cut Apple out? The point is there isn't enough
> money to go around when you have this many interested parties. But
> there are still a whole lot of interested parties that are essentially
> dead weight.
>
> ulysses

[Roger W. Norman]

Exactly.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << What about new artists who haven't gotten themselves entangled with a
> label yet? Couldn't they become "major artists"? >>
>
> If they have the resources to market their releases. The ITunes store is
just
> that. A store is not a marketing and promotion company.
>
> The good news is that there is no restriction on shelf space. The bad
news is
> there is no restriction on shelf space.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[BananaHead]

> Sex sells....
>
> Can you sell sex on an Ipod?


That would be killer. I'm for it all. Mobile sin box. Then I can
take my stolen music AND porn everywhere I go.

The iPod possibilities go on and on and on. It's a hard drive, very
compact, tough, with a really slick little interface. It could
eventual act as a music player, address book, pocket recorder, web
browser, video player, camera, video camera, etc.

I believe those profit margins. Apple isn't in the music biz, they're
a computer company. They are selling little hard drives. It's very
simple.

-bh

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

reddred > wrote:

> If the cost of distribution is near zero, and in the case of electronic
> distribution that's the case


Whoah, hold on there. People talk about the thieving record labels
greedily taking $16 for the sale of a CD and only giving $1 or whatever
to the artist, because they're failing to consider the $8 that goes to
the retail store (which in turm pays employees), the truck drivers and
warehouse workers, the manufacturing and printing and promoters etc. I
think you understand this. You don't seem to realize that the online
distribution scheme costs money too. A lot of money. All those
dot-coms wouldn't have gone belly-up if they didn't have any expenses.
Aside from the obvious things like hardware and administration and
networking, you've got the promotion costs. The cost of promoting a
band and a record and a company haven't gone away, and now they've got
the cost of promoting a brand-new distribution technology on top of
everything else. And what do you think it costs to build and run a
website capable of delivering a million or more secure, paid 3MB
downloads in a week? That's at least 15 terabytes monthly. That's an
insanely large bandwidth. You don't call up Roadrunner for a
connection like that. Remember they're doing the work that a worldwide
P2P network has been doing, not including the payment handling.

ulysses

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

> What about new artists who haven't gotten themselves entangled with a
> label yet? Couldn't they become "major artists"?

Only if their "fans" think it makes sense to pay for music, instead of
P2P'ing it because it's supposed to be "free". That mioght turn out to
be a problem.

--
ha

[EggHd]

This is out of online distro, but check out The Stones, a huge brand name
promoting a huge brand name DVD 40 Licks DVD.

The Stones are doing this themselves only going thru Best Buy so there really
is no distribution just pack and ship to one chain.

Have you seen what they are spending on advertising?

Full page ads in major market newspapers, radio and TV advertising, they must
be spending 3 million or more.

Even the Stones can't take a new piece of product and put it out somewhere
without letting their fans know it's there.

Think about the rest of us.


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

[Nathan West]

EggHd wrote:

> Full page ads in major market newspapers, radio and TV advertising, they must
> be spending 3 million or more.

Brand management is expensive. Toys R Us spends more than that on Take Out during
a marketing session.

> Even the Stones can't take a new piece of product and put it out somewhere
> without letting their fans know it's there.

Neither can Pepsi or Macdonalds.

> Think about the rest of us.

The Stones are competing against Shania and the like....just not most of us. I'm
sure Dave Mathews gives them an itch or two as well. It comes down to knowing
your market, your budget, your supporters, and your banker.

--
Cheers and All
Nathan

" Elementary chaos theory tells us that all of Cakewalk will eventually turn
against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the biting
with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving."
-Professor Frink

[EggHd]

<< Brand management is expensive. >>

It is.

<< The Stones are competing against Shania and the like....just not most of us
>>

That's everyone's competition going into the marketplace.

<< It comes down to knowing
your market, your budget, your supporters, and your banker. >>

Exactly. How many units can you sell and what should you spend marketing to
the audience. It's same for everyone.




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

[reddred]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> reddred > wrote:
>
> > If the cost of distribution is near zero, and in the case of electronic
> > distribution that's the case
>
>
> Whoah, hold on there. People talk about the thieving record labels
> greedily taking $16 for the sale of a CD and only giving $1 or whatever
> to the artist, because they're failing to consider the $8 that goes to
> the retail store (which in turm pays employees), the truck drivers and
> warehouse workers, the manufacturing and printing and promoters etc. I
> think you understand this. You don't seem to realize that the online
> distribution scheme costs money too. A lot of money. All those
> dot-coms wouldn't have gone belly-up if they didn't have any expenses.
> Aside from the obvious things like hardware and administration and
> networking, you've got the promotion costs. The cost of promoting a
> band and a record and a company haven't gone away, and now they've got
> the cost of promoting a brand-new distribution technology on top of
> everything else. And what do you think it costs to build and run a
> website capable of delivering a million or more secure, paid 3MB
> downloads in a week? That's at least 15 terabytes monthly. That's an
> insanely large bandwidth. You don't call up Roadrunner for a
> connection like that. Remember they're doing the work that a worldwide
> P2P network has been doing, not including the payment handling.
>
> ulysses

Maybe I wasn't concise. I understand all too well the costs involved, it's
just a question of who is paying those costs. If the media conglomerates
will no longer be vertically integrated with distribution, and don't foot
the bill for electronic distribution, this has implications for artist
contracts.

jb

[EggHd]

<< If the media conglomerates
will no longer be vertically integrated with distribution, and don't foot
the bill for electronic distribution, this has implications for artist
contracts. >>

But it's not anything compared to the marketing costs. Many indie labels only
spend 12 to 15% on distribution fees.



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

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

reddred > wrote:

> Maybe I wasn't concise. I understand all too well the costs involved, it's
> just a question of who is paying those costs. If the media conglomerates
> will no longer be vertically integrated with distribution, and don't foot
> the bill for electronic distribution, this has implications for artist
> contracts.

You'd like to think, but you have to look at the numbers as they're
adding up so far. It'll certainly be different, but I can't say
exactly how at this point. We'll see how it all shakes out.


ulysses

[reddred]

"Justin Ulysses Morse" > wrote in message
...
> reddred > wrote:
>
> > Maybe I wasn't concise. I understand all too well the costs involved,
it's
> > just a question of who is paying those costs. If the media conglomerates
> > will no longer be vertically integrated with distribution, and don't
foot
> > the bill for electronic distribution, this has implications for artist
> > contracts.
>
> You'd like to think, but you have to look at the numbers as they're
> adding up so far. It'll certainly be different, but I can't say
> exactly how at this point. We'll see how it all shakes out.
>
>
> ulysses

We'll have to see what present/future model ends up being most succesful.
Apple can sell iPods, that pretty much enables the whole thing, but that may
not be true of other distributors. The thing that looks cool to me about the
deal with Apple is that distribution has become a revenue source in and of
itself as opposed to an expense.

jb

[reddred]

"Julian Standen" > wrote in message
om...
> Do you think this Apple move might have a negative effect long term on
> the industry?
>
> I was thinking of the selling soda analogy above and wondering appart
> from Ipods what Apple can sell along with music... and then I thought,
> you cant see a picture of Mariah Cary on an Ipod...
>
> Sex sells....
>
> Can you sell sex on an Ipod?
>
> MP3 players with "picures" or videos HAVE to be next.
>

Cell phones with pictures and mp3 players are here, as are pda's with mp3
players and pictures, as are cell phones with mp3's.... the iPod is a
conservative offer right now in this arena, but it wouldn't be a good
product if there weren't years of future upgrades and slow price reductions.

There is mail, pictures, movies, iDisk access, calendar, it goes on and
on... Apple has been shoveling money into these subscription services (and
servers and bandwidth for them) and it looks like eventually they will all
be accessed from an iPod. Which, most likely, will be the remote for your
television as well.

Music is just the first application that is driving things like media
subscription services and p2p.

jb

[EggHd]

<< The thing that looks cool to me about the
deal with Apple is that distribution has become a revenue source in and of
itself as opposed to an expense. >>

But the reality is that the artists who are marketed and promoted well will be
the ones that sell.

This is going to be be just another retail chain.



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

[Neil Henderson]

>But the reality is that the artists who are marketed and promoted well will
>be
>the ones that sell.
>
>This is going to be be just another retail chain.

Even though my tunes are either now or soon to be up on Rhapsody, Emusic,
AOL-MusicNet, MusicMatch, BuyMusic, AudioLunchbox, the new Napster, and iTunes
(all through CDBaby's efforts in this arena); I have a feeling you're right...
in terms of marketing, it's going to take the $$$ that the majors have to break
through all the noise. I've had varied results from web advertising - some
worthless, some not too bad, none outrageously great; but it'll be interesting
to see if there's any way for an "indie" to break through the clutter on the
sites mentioned above.

NeilH

[EggHd]

<< (all through CDBaby's efforts in this arena) >>

They are really a class act.

<< I've had varied results from web advertising - some
worthless, some not too bad, none outrageously great; but it'll be interesting
to see if there's any way for an "indie" to break through the clutter on the
sites mentioned above. >>

Here's the "problem" with national web distribution. In most cases promotion
and marketing is "local" and reactive to heat in the marketplace.

It's very difficult for an indie act to even think nationally or globally let
alone market that way.

The majors go market by market via radio, touring local press and then take it
nationally when markets start to break.

Take your home market and get heat going there through live gigs, local press
around those and even local specialty radio shows. You can then tell the story
to other markets and get more exposure area by area.





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

[TC]

The record biz has a very small margin? Oh give me a break. They've
been recycling their old catalog for years... adding a 'unique' cut to
the reconstituted compilations in order to try to get the public to
purchase the same music they own, once again.

On 11 Nov 2003 00:52:59 GMT, (EggHd) wrote:

><< Maybe he's looking to discourage potential competitors from entering the
>market? >>
>
>Or maybe what's making money for Apple is different than what record companies
>make. The record biz has a very small margin.
>
>
>---------------------------------------
>"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[LeBaron & Alrich]

TC > wrote:

> The record biz has a very small margin? Oh give me a break. They've
> been recycling their old catalog for years... adding a 'unique' cut to
> the reconstituted compilations in order to try to get the public to
> purchase the same music they own, once again.

That's right. The record business has a very small margin. If you knew
something about it you'd know that already.

--
ha

[Jay - atldigi]

In article >,
(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote:

> TC > wrote:
>
> > The record biz has a very small margin? Oh give me a break. They've
> > been recycling their old catalog for years... adding a 'unique' cut to
> > the reconstituted compilations in order to try to get the public to
> > purchase the same music they own, once again.
>
> That's right. The record business has a very small margin. If you knew
> something about it you'd know that already.
>
> --
> ha

Thank goodness for catalog or there might be no margin at all for some
labels in the current climate.

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Jay - atldigi wrote:

> Thank goodness for catalog or there might be no margin at all for some
> labels in the current climate.

You mean where the fans are too old to bother trying to steal it.

--
ha

[ryanm]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1068553912k@trad...
>
> It would be interesting to see an accurate analysis, but I'll bet it's
> more than most people think, at least if you want to do it well. It
> costs about $50/month for an individual user to let others grab music
> files from the computer under his desk, through his cable TV Internet
> service. It costs a lot more for Apple to set up enough servers so
> that there isn't a bottleneck for downloading (I haven't heard such
> reports yet, so maybe they're ahead of the game for now), and then
> there's the licenses, the lawyers, the advertising, and the
> administration - oh, and the profit without which there would be no
> iTunes. I wouldn't be surprised if the transit costs are on
> the order of 5 to 10 percent of the retail price when everything is
> added in.
>
You have to consider, though, that Apple already has significant
bandwidth for it's other online services. Probably multiple OC3 or OC12,
which is more than enough bandwidth to distribute all the music they want.
Since they already have the bandwidth, and they are probably in a contract
with their provider to be able to scale it up at a reasonable cost, the
bandwidth issues are almost negligble. For a startup trying to get into the
same business, the initial costs would be substantial, but I don't believe
for a second that Apple had to buy all the hardware and bandwidth new for
this service. Development costs, well, you'd need a project lead/producer
type with the "big picture", a designer, a programmer, and an asset manager,
for about 90 days. Let's say all 4 of those guys are getting paid top
dollar, we're still only talking $100k in development, double that if they
sourced out the programming. To be generous, let's say another $100k in
hardware and bandwidth improvements. The big expense is the payoff they
would've had to make to whichever labels own the catalogs they are selling.
Even still, it cost less to build the thing than it did to advertise it. I
would build it for less than that, if anyone is interested. ; )

I'd attribute Jobs' comments more to politics than anything else. Apple
has stockholders, and if iTunes is suddenly showing a couple hundred
thousand sales per week they're going to want to see it reflected in their
dividends. They also have competition who don't have an iPod to sell, and
saying that there's no money in the music is probably discouraging to people
thinking of getting into that market. There are other reasons as well, but
you get the point. It's a good business move to say that their making the
money on the hardware rather than the content. Most other industries work
the other way around, give the razor away and sell the blades, give the
phone away and sell the service, etc. The problem is, anyone can provide the
service, but Apple owns the whole iPod, and they want to keep the focus on
that.

ryanm

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> You have to consider, though, that Apple already has significant
> bandwidth for it's other online services. Probably multiple OC3 or OC12,
> which is more than enough bandwidth to distribute all the music they want.

I guess they had to invent something to use up that excess bandwidth
before the bean counters took it away.

> For a startup trying to get into the
> same business, the initial costs would be substantial, but I don't believe
> for a second that Apple had to buy all the hardware and bandwidth new for
> this service.

Obviously they had a leg up, and certainly they did with the software
development since that's their business. On the other hand, they
didn't come into this like a startup in the music distribution
business, they came in like they had years of experience and plenty of
resources (which they did).

> To be generous, let's say another $100k in
> hardware and bandwidth improvements.

That's all? Can I take that to the bank and get startup money for a
porn web site? I'll bet there's still plenty of money in that? And
practically no licensing fees. <g>

> I'd attribute Jobs' comments more to politics than anything else. Apple
> has stockholders, and if iTunes is suddenly showing a couple hundred
> thousand sales per week they're going to want to see it reflected in their
> dividends. They also have competition who don't have an iPod to sell, and
> saying that there's no money in the music is probably discouraging to people
> thinking of getting into that market.

You think that businesses listen to what the competition says? I read
"there's no money in downloaded music" as a message to the
downloaders, that even though they have to pay for what they used to
get for free, the "store" isn't making money. Things haven't changed.


--
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[ryanm]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1070628189k@trad...
>
> > To be generous, let's say another $100k in
> > hardware and bandwidth improvements.
>
> That's all? Can I take that to the bank and get startup money for a
> porn web site? I'll bet there's still plenty of money in that? And
> practically no licensing fees. <g>
>
I know a couple of hosts that will do it. ****, if you can get $50k in
startup money I'll build it for you for free, and all I want is 50% of the
profits. ; )

Porn is still the largest internet industry around, turning *billions*
in profit every year.

ryanm

[Ryan]

"reddred" > wrote in message >...
> "EggHd" > wrote in message
> ...
> > << So now it's time to pass the savings to the artists that make the music
> > happen. >>

I happen to know of a lot of outstanding artists that have never
released a CD and are now seriously consdering never doing so. Why
produce something that gives away just about 100% of what you have to
offer (everything except the live show) just so it can be stolen and
distributed easily? Better to figure out some other method of getting
money for your music. Releasing only a couple of home made music
videos, or just doing shows, and again, never releasing a CD until
this whole mess is sorted out. (The reason for releasing music videos
instead of CD's is that "most" people out there don't know how to get
the audio from a DVD or VHS tape, or are just too lazy to do so.
Although, of course, some do know exactly how to do this and
especially with Digital I/O cards, can do it quite well.)

All this means that the music scene is now seriously retarded and will
be for the foreseeable future. The very things that used to grant
success to an artist are now their biggest hinderence: The better and
catchier a song, the more likly it will be spread around the P2P sites
and the more people will hear it; but now as opposed to just five
years ago, this means that the artist is much more unlikly to ever get
paid for it. What record company would offer a contract to an artist
for an album that everybody has already heard? If on the other hand
someone creates incredibly hard to listen to, radical and esoteric
music, the liklyhood of it showing up on Kazaa are far less, thus
forcing more fans to go out and actually buy the CD. But, catch 23
million, this kind of music will nessicairly have a lot less fans to
begin with.

Go and figure this one out.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I happen to know of a lot of outstanding artists that have never
> released a CD and are now seriously consdering never doing so. Why
> produce something that gives away just about 100% of what you have to
> offer (everything except the live show) just so it can be stolen and
> distributed easily? Better to figure out some other method of getting
> money for your music.

The trick is to not allow all of your music to be given away. That's
what the record companies are trying to avoid right now. In terms of
dollars, there's more to be lost if a well known major label artist's
work gets passed around with no profits going back to the company than
if an individual's work gets passed around, but of course it hurts
both of them.

The trick is to encourage people, based on free samples, to purchase
your music. In reality, although the scale is quite small, this works
better for the individual artist than the major label artist becaue
there's much smaller chance of "finding" free copies of the
individual's work. People tend to be more honest and have less of the
"they're ripping everyone off, so I'll rip them off" attitude with an
individual than with a major label, so that's why you see all the fuss
kicked up by the big boys, while the little guys embrace on-line music
content as cheap or free advertising.

> The better and
> catchier a song, the more likly it will be spread around the P2P sites
> and the more people will hear it;

I don't do P2P sites (nor do I listen to pop radio) so I don't know
what's popular and what's catchy other than by what I read, but I
don't recall that I've ever read about an "undiscovered"
(non-major-label) artist that has made it big through the P2P network.
I think (and admittedly, this is a bigoted opinion) that the P2P
networks mostly deal with trading either material that can be
purchased at any big record store or for trading material that's no
longer in print. And (another bigoted opinion) I'll bet I know which
kind has the most downloads per title.

> If on the other hand
> someone creates incredibly hard to listen to, radical and esoteric
> music, the liklyhood of it showing up on Kazaa are far less, thus
> forcing more fans to go out and actually buy the CD.

Yeah, all five of 'em. The trick is to develop on-line marketplaces
for those less popular genres, and develop them in a way that the
visitors will be inclined to make purchases rather than go in search
of free copies.

> Go and figure this one out.

If I did, I might either be rich or would have a scheme that I could
make money with by selling the concept on the Internet. <g>




--
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1070712489k@trad...
>
> The trick is to not allow all of your music to be given away.

I'm thinking that's what's happening with DVDs too like the new Alien
"Quadrilogy". Try to put out so much stuff that even the latest, fastest
lines would have trouble downloading it all, trying to "stay ahead" of the
technology. Do you really need 42 hours worth of extra stuff?

[knud]

>> The trick is to not allow all of your music to be given away.
>
>I'm thinking that's what's happening with DVDs too like the new Alien
>"Quadrilogy". Try to put out so much stuff that even the latest, fastest
>lines would have trouble downloading it all, trying to "stay ahead" of the
>technology. Do you really need 42 hours worth of extra stuff?

Whats sad is that people need to resort to trickery to get sales in the
first place.


blahblah
ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
EVERYONE CREATES IN A VACUUM!

[Les Cargill]

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote:
>
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> news:znr1070712489k@trad...
> >
> > The trick is to not allow all of your music to be given away.
>
> I'm thinking that's what's happening with DVDs too like the new Alien
> "Quadrilogy". Try to put out so much stuff that even the latest, fastest
> lines would have trouble downloading it all, trying to "stay ahead" of the
> technology. Do you really need 42 hours worth of extra stuff?

It is a collectors item, as all box sets really are. FWIW, they
sold quite a few of the "Alien" plastic dolls. It's just one
of those movie series that works well in selling merchandise.

--
Les Cargill

[Ryan]

Although this thread isn't really about the ALiens "Quadrilology," or
whatever, I have to say that as a fan of the first three Alien movies,
The fourth one absolutly shamed the series. If someone were to buy
me a copy of this "Qudrilogy," the first thing I'd do is run outside
and burn the fourth Disc. This cartoonish, braindead, wreck of a
movie absolutly does not belong with the the other legendary titles in
the series. And to think, Ms. Weaver actually resited doing a fourth
Aliens movie for so long because she could never find a script she
thought did the series justice! BAH!

[reddred]

"Ryan" > wrote in message
om...
> Although this thread isn't really about the ALiens "Quadrilology," or
> whatever, I have to say that as a fan of the first three Alien movies,
> The fourth one absolutly shamed the series. If someone were to buy
> me a copy of this "Qudrilogy," the first thing I'd do is run outside
> and burn the fourth Disc. This cartoonish, braindead, wreck of a
> movie absolutly does not belong with the the other legendary titles in
> the series. And to think, Ms. Weaver actually resited doing a fourth
> Aliens movie for so long because she could never find a script she
> thought did the series justice! BAH!

Agreed. It was pathetic. There's a 'quadrilogy' set out now on DVD, and it
would be much more attractive if the fourth one weren't in it!

At the time, there was some nonsense about how #4 established Alien as an
ongoing series. A TV series, at least what one could tell from the quality
of #4. It was more like a nail in the coffin.

jb

[reddred]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
> news:znr1070628189k@trad...
> >
> > > To be generous, let's say another $100k in
> > > hardware and bandwidth improvements.
> >
> > That's all? Can I take that to the bank and get startup money for a
> > porn web site? I'll bet there's still plenty of money in that? And
> > practically no licensing fees. <g>
> >
> I know a couple of hosts that will do it. ****, if you can get $50k in
> startup money I'll build it for you for free, and all I want is 50% of the
> profits. ; )
>
> Porn is still the largest internet industry around, turning *billions*
> in profit every year.
>

It's my understanding that the porn producers will pay smaller sites to host
or link to free content, and feed people to the subscription sites and sites
that sell porn products. Some tiny portion (1-2%) of the porn 'consumers'
actually pay for it, and this somehow generates billions. It boggles the
mind.

jb

[ryanm]

"reddred" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's my understanding that the porn producers will pay smaller sites to
host
> or link to free content, and feed people to the subscription sites and
sites
> that sell porn products. Some tiny portion (1-2%) of the porn 'consumers'
> actually pay for it, and this somehow generates billions. It boggles the
> mind.
>
Do the math; of the 6 billion people on the planet, it appears as though
at least 1 billion of them actively use porn on a regular basis (disbelieve
if you choose, but the numbers bear it out). If 1%-2% of a billion actually
buy something, that's several hundred million people purchasing porn
products on a regular basis. Now, obviously all of them don't buy something
every day, but if all of them buy something only once a year that's several
hundred million people paying (to pull an assumed average number out of my
ass) $20 for a product or service that adds up to several billion a year.
And some porn users purchase much more often than that, or are paying
monthly fees to have access to web sites instead of just purchasing once a
year. Think about $9.99 a month times 500k users. And you're selling the
same product to all of them, so there's no storage cost, no stocking cost,
no shipping cost, etc., just a server somewhere with some pictures on it.

It has been said for a long time that prostitution is the oldest
profession, and I think it's probably also true that porn is the oldest
commodity.

And to bring this back on topic, porn is a perfect example of an
industry where their "bread and butter" is given away for free on a daily
basis but the industry continues not only to thrive, but to grow
exponentially every year without exception. The key here is that the sites
that make money do so on "value added", since the very same pictures can be
found on alt.binaries newsgroups and pirate porn sites just by using google.

ryanm

[reddred]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...

> And to bring this back on topic, porn is a perfect example of an
> industry where their "bread and butter" is given away for free on a daily
> basis but the industry continues not only to thrive, but to grow
> exponentially every year without exception. The key here is that the sites
> that make money do so on "value added", since the very same pictures can
be
> found on alt.binaries newsgroups and pirate porn sites just by using
google.
>

That's kind of what I was getting at. The problem I have with that model is
that the compensation for the performers ... sucks.

jb

[ryanm]

"reddred" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's kind of what I was getting at. The problem I have with that model
is
> that the compensation for the performers ... sucks.
>
Last I heard porn stars made a ****load of money, and amateurs are just
that: amateurs. The deal is, porn stars get a better deal up front than
musicians are getting from a label, they at least get proper compensation
when they get ****ed in the ass. ; )

ryanm

[George Gleason]

> > when music can be had for free, it has no value
> >
> Forget the rest of the argument, I disagree on this fundamental point.
>

and we will have to leave it here cause any further discussion is moot if
you believe people can make music as a career , and pay thier houses and
send thier kids to college with profits that do not exist
the ablilty to live off your(musical) skills is being taken away by the
freedownloader
once they have drained all value from the music and it is totally free it
will have no worth
basic economics
why own a cow if you get free milk?
george


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 12/2/2003

[reddred]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> "reddred" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That's kind of what I was getting at. The problem I have with that model
> is
> > that the compensation for the performers ... sucks.
> >
> Last I heard porn stars made a ****load of money, and amateurs are
just
> that: amateurs. The deal is, porn stars get a better deal up front than
> musicians are getting from a label, they at least get proper compensation
> when they get ****ed in the ass. ; )
>
> ryanm
>

I think it probably evens out for both types of 'stars'. But the vast
majority of people in porn and music aren't 'stars', even though they do the
same.... job.

jb

[reddred]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > when music can be had for free, it has no value
> > >
> > Forget the rest of the argument, I disagree on this fundamental
point.
> >
>
> and we will have to leave it here cause any further discussion is moot if
> you believe people can make music as a career , and pay thier houses and
> send thier kids to college with profits that do not exist
> the ablilty to live off your(musical) skills is being taken away by the
> freedownloader
> once they have drained all value from the music and it is totally free it
> will have no worth
> basic economics
> why own a cow if you get free milk?
> george
>

People had careers in music when albums were still considered a
non-profitable way to promote shows.

jb

[George Gleason]

"reddred" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George Gleason" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > > when music can be had for free, it has no value
> > > >
> > > Forget the rest of the argument, I disagree on this fundamental
> point.
> > >
> >
> > and we will have to leave it here cause any further discussion is moot
if
> > you believe people can make music as a career , and pay thier houses and
> > send thier kids to college with profits that do not exist
> > the ablilty to live off your(musical) skills is being taken away by the
> > freedownloader
> > once they have drained all value from the music and it is totally free
it
> > will have no worth
> > basic economics
> > why own a cow if you get free milk?
> > george
> >
>
> People had careers in music when albums were still considered a
> non-profitable way to promote shows.
>
and there will always be jobs as orchestra musicians
so I guess we are weeding out all the marginal stuff like Fleetwood Mac and
the eagles by eliminating pop musics profitable distribution
personal I will be glad to see it go
and they can take rap and metal ,grunge,hip hop , to the grave with them

maybe I sohuld be supporting the illegal downloading, it would make the
world a better place after all
:-)
George



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 12/2/2003

[reddred]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
>
> "reddred" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George Gleason" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > > > when music can be had for free, it has no value
> > > > >
> > > > Forget the rest of the argument, I disagree on this fundamental
> > point.
> > > >
> > >
> > > and we will have to leave it here cause any further discussion is
moot
> if
> > > you believe people can make music as a career , and pay thier houses
and
> > > send thier kids to college with profits that do not exist
> > > the ablilty to live off your(musical) skills is being taken away by
the
> > > freedownloader
> > > once they have drained all value from the music and it is totally free
> it
> > > will have no worth
> > > basic economics
> > > why own a cow if you get free milk?
> > > george
> > >
> >
> > People had careers in music when albums were still considered a
> > non-profitable way to promote shows.
> >
> and there will always be jobs as orchestra musicians
> so I guess we are weeding out all the marginal stuff like Fleetwood Mac
and
> the eagles by eliminating pop musics profitable distribution
> personal I will be glad to see it go
> and they can take rap and metal ,grunge,hip hop , to the grave with them
>
> maybe I sohuld be supporting the illegal downloading, it would make the
> world a better place after all
> :-)
> George
>

Well, I just watched Billboards music awards and I'm fine with all that
going down the toilet. If that's the best they can do.

jb


>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 12/2/2003
>
>

[EggHd]

<< Well, I just watched Billboards music awards and I'm fine with all that
going down the toilet. If that's the best they can do. >>

pop music has always been disposable.



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

[ryanm]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
>
> maybe I sohuld be supporting the illegal downloading, it would make the
> world a better place after all
>
Nice 180... <g>

ryanm

[ryanm]

"reddred" > wrote in message
...
>
> People had careers in music when albums were still considered a
> non-profitable way to promote shows.
>
People had careers in music before wax cylinder recording was
invented...

ryanm

[George Gleason]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> "George Gleason" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > maybe I sohuld be supporting the illegal downloading, it would make the
> > world a better place after all
> >
> Nice 180... <g>
>
Kinda like supporting Hitler cause of all the construction jobs he created.
george


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 12/2/2003

[EggHd]

<< People had careers in music before wax cylinder recording was
invented... >>

Plenty of people have good careers being performers without selling records.


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

[George Gleason]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << People had careers in music before wax cylinder recording was
> invented... >>
>
> Plenty of people have good careers being performers without selling
records.
>
and they don't need recording gear, engineers or recording studio owners
either
George


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

[reddred]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << Well, I just watched Billboards music awards and I'm fine with all that
> going down the toilet. If that's the best they can do. >>
>
> pop music has always been disposable.
>

Maybe what you listen to<g>, but there are some great songs out there, and
great performances have been done. There is still some good, human stuff
going on, just not -there-.

Most of the good stuff was never on network TV, but just in terms of good
old pop craftsmanship, the whole thing has gone downhill. Pop music still
needs some quality and innovation, even when there's a republican in office
and everybody wears ugly shoes.

jb

[reddred]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> "reddred" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > People had careers in music when albums were still considered a
> > non-profitable way to promote shows.
> >
> People had careers in music before wax cylinder recording was
> invented...
>
> ryanm
>

People had careers in pop music in 13th century france... some of the best
pop songs ever written are from then, and every song about unrequited love
still pretty much follows the same format.

jb

[EggHd]

<< and they don't need recording gear, engineers or recording studio owners
either >>

that's right



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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> People had careers in music before wax cylinder recording was
> invented...

Right. And how many can you name who were active in a single five year
period? Compare that to how many you can name who have had a top-40
song in the past year?




--
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[ryanm]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1071572932k@trad...
>
> Right. And how many can you name who were active in a single five year
> period? Compare that to how many you can name who have had a top-40
> song in the past year?
>
History filters out the garbage, but last year wasn't long enough ago
for the garbage to be filtered out yet, but that's not really the point. The
point is that it's possible to have a career in music without sinking
everything into a cd that you hope will go platinum. The model is screwed up
nowadays, obviously, if someone can sell several hundred thousand copies and
still consider it a failure. Like I said, maybe, just maybe, the destruction
of the whole industry and starting over with only the people who are in it
for the music and not the money would be a good thing.

ryanm

[EggHd]

<< The point is that it's possible to have a career in music without sinking
everything into a cd that you hope will go platinum. >>

It's happening every day. Do you believe you are making some kind of
revelation?

<< The model is screwed up nowadays, obviously, if someone can sell several
hundred thousand copies and still consider it a failure. >>

Where does this happen? What are you smoking?

<< Like I said, maybe, just maybe, the destruction
of the whole industry and starting over with only the people who are in it
for the music and not the money would be a good thing. >>

See above.



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

[Dave Martin]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...

> << The model is screwed up nowadays, obviously, if someone can sell
several
> hundred thousand copies and still consider it a failure. >>
>
> Where does this happen? What are you smoking?
>
How many records is "Gold"? I know of several Nashville artists who were
dropped from their label because their second album only went gold after the
first went platinum...

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

[Les Cargill]

Dave Martin wrote:
>
> "EggHd" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > << The model is screwed up nowadays, obviously, if someone can sell
> several
> > hundred thousand copies and still consider it a failure. >>
> >
> > Where does this happen? What are you smoking?
> >
> How many records is "Gold"? I know of several Nashville artists who were
> dropped from their label because their second album only went gold after the
> first went platinum...
>
> --
> Dave Martin
> Java Jive Studio
> Nashville, TN
> www.javajivestudio.com

http://md.essortment.com/whatisgoldrec_rixf.htm

--
Les Cargill

[EggHd]

<< How many records is "Gold"? >>

500,000 shipped.

<< I know of several Nashville artists who were
dropped from their label because their second album only went gold after the
first went platinum... >>

Right. As in any business it's about what it cost to get it to that number.
What is the option on album 3 in their contract after gold and platinum sales
levels? The label may see that this artist is only going to sell less on the
3rd release and have a 1.5 million option on album 3. There are many reasons
why that could happen.





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

[ryanm]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
>
> << The model is screwed up nowadays, obviously, if someone can sell
several
> hundred thousand copies and still consider it a failure. >>
>
> Where does this happen? What are you smoking?
>
How did Mariah Carey's last album do?

ryanm

[ryanm]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think we need more people who goal is to earn money
> this will drive them to satisfy themselves and the consumer where the
lack
> of finacial gain will only allow them to satisy themselves
>
The problem is, this leads to targeting the lowest common denominator,
which is how we got to where we are.

ryanm

[EggHd]

<< How did Mariah Carey's last album do? >>

What does that have to do with anything?



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

[EggHd]

<< The problem is, this leads to targeting the lowest common denominator,
which is how we got to where we are. >>

But you don't have to be part of that. Why do the big 5 or 3 major
distributors even need to be on your radar?



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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Like I said, maybe, just maybe, the destruction
> of the whole industry and starting over with only the people who are in it
> for the music and not the money would be a good thing.

But even people into music gotta eat. Maybe by then we'd have evolved
to the point where we can metabolize plastic.




--
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[George Gleason]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << The problem is, this leads to targeting the lowest common denominator,
> which is how we got to where we are. >>
>
> But you don't have to be part of that. Why do the big 5 or 3 major
> distributors even need to be on your radar?
>
I think he is saying that until selling 30single units of a home brew cd is
considered a sucess, we need to work to eliminate the studios/lables that
creates multi million sellers, cause the fact that the studion sell
millions ,some how is preventing him from his sucess.
george


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

[ryanm]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << How did Mariah Carey's last album do? >>
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
>
She sold millions and her label fired her for the poor sales. You asked
me where it happened, I just gave an example.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think he is saying that until selling 30single units of a home brew cd
is
> considered a sucess, we need to work to eliminate the studios/lables that
> creates multi million sellers, cause the fact that the studion sell
> millions ,some how is preventing him from his sucess.
>
Not at all, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

What I said is what I meant: while money is the driving force behind the
creation of music, the lowest common denominator is all that gets any real
attention. It's not that I have a problem with them releasing music that
everyone wants, the problem is that no one has a choice. The labels will
only put money behind someone they think will sell millions, but once upon a
time 100k was a successful release and worth putting some money behind too.
Do the majors even bother with an artists they think will only go gold these
days?

ryanm

[EggHd]

<< What I said is what I meant: while money is the driving force behind the
creation of music, the lowest common denominator is all that gets any real
attention. >>

based on what? The public's taste? get rid of the labels and this taste will
change?

<< or is all that gets any real
attention. It's not that I have a problem with them releasing music that
everyone wants, the problem is that no one has a choice. >>

Who is no one? Does anyone take products to market that people don't want?

<< The labels will
only put money behind someone they think will sell millions, but once upon a
time 100k was a successful release and worth putting some money behind too. >>

Do you have examples? Do you know the entire rosters of the majors and their
frustrations with the market place?

<< Do the majors even bother with an artists they think will only go gold these
days? >>

Are you serious?



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

[EggHd]

<< She sold millions and her label fired her for the poor sales. You asked
me where it happened, I just gave an example >>

Are you talking about the label that signed her for 80 million (if all options
were picked up), then saw her have a melt down and opted out of her contract in
a buyout? Goofy example.



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

[George Gleason]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> "George Gleason" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I think he is saying that until selling 30single units of a home brew cd
> is
> > considered a sucess, we need to work to eliminate the studios/lables
that
> > creates multi million sellers, cause the fact that the studion sell
> > millions ,some how is preventing him from his sucess.
> >
> Not at all, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
>
> What I said is what I meant: while money is the driving force behind
the
> creation of music, the lowest common denominator is all that gets any real
> attention.


that premise just does not make sense
it is the throw away billion sellers that fund the artistic endevors
with out cash cows there is nothing to build the farm for

It's not that I have a problem with them releasing music that
> everyone wants, the problem is that no one has a choice.

last time I was in Borders it sure looked like there was a choice
a choice of over 10,000 stocked titles
and a choice to order anything you could name

The labels will
> only put money behind someone they think will sell millions, but once upon
a
> time 100k was a successful release and worth putting some money behind
too.
> Do the majors even bother with an artists they think will only go gold
these
> days?

your myopic view is turning you senile
how many artists do you think the "majors" sign and attemt to develop?
and even besides that why do you focus on the "majors" there are hundreds
if not thousands of labels filling niche needs like Sugar Hill and Relix,
and Green Linent
there is a label that can make you money in any type of music if you have
the talent, desire, and drive to obtain it
there is no glass wall between a artist and fortune held in place by the
"Majors"
remove the profit and you remove the dream of making a living off thier
music for many artists
the artists would have to be carpenters and electricians in order to eat
without the money creating the market most all artists would have to quit
music and find paying work
the labels sell records that bring people to concerts that sell records
it is a wonderful symbiosis
at the bottom of this artistic pyramid is PROFIT
the more profit the more chances on unknowns the label can take
George


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> last time I was in Borders it sure looked like there was a choice
> a choice of over 10,000 stocked titles
> and a choice to order anything you could name

This isn't a choice, it's an example of someone not making a decision
as to what will sell, or what's good music, and leaving it up to
people who are willing to take a chance. Most people thing that's a
good thing because it's fair. I'd rather have someone guide me in
areas about which I know little. It doesn't bother me as much to miss
out on hearing Artist X than it does to buy Artist Y on a whim and not
enjoy my purchase.

> how many artists do you think the "majors" sign and attemt to develop?

They "sign" more than they intend to develop. Those that have
potential of one sort or another get developed, at least for a while,
the others get dropped. In a sense it's a little like the way a lot of
people (including "the majors" record). They don't know at the start
what they're going to end up with, so they record a bunch of stuff,
and when they figure they have enough, turn it over to a producer or
mixer to make something of the pile. They may record some new tracks
(the parallel to signing yet another new artist) but more often
they'll decide not to use a lot of the tracks that were recorded (the
parallel to dropping artists that didn't make it). And then they end
up with something they think will sell. Maybe so, maybe not.



--
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[George Gleason]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1071753718k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > last time I was in Borders it sure looked like there was a choice
> > a choice of over 10,000 stocked titles
> > and a choice to order anything you could name
>
> This isn't a choice, it's an example of someone not making a decision
> as to what will sell, or what's good music, and leaving it up to
> people who are willing to take a chance. Most people thing that's a
> good thing because it's fair. I'd rather have someone guide me in
> areas about which I know little. It doesn't bother me as much to miss
> out on hearing Artist X than it does to buy Artist Y on a whim and not
> enjoy my purchase.
>
> > how many artists do you think the "majors" sign and attemt to develop?
>
> They "sign" more than they intend to develop. Those that have
> potential of one sort or another get developed, at least for a while,
> the others get dropped. In a sense it's a little like the way a lot of
> people (including "the majors" record). They don't know at the start
> what they're going to end up with, so they record a bunch of stuff,
> and when they figure they have enough, turn it over to a producer or
> mixer to make something of the pile. They may record some new tracks
> (the parallel to signing yet another new artist) but more often
> they'll decide not to use a lot of the tracks that were recorded (the
> parallel to dropping artists that didn't make it). And then they end
> up with something they think will sell. Maybe so, maybe not.
>
and how many artists would be given a chance if there was not really huge
piles of money to be made when one "Hits"
I put forth the artist would have to prove the ability to produce and sell a
1/2 million copies before a studio would even talk to them if there was not
that fat profit .
Profit is a good thing
excessive profit on luxury items is even better
it make luxury what it is
I would not be doing sound for a living if there was no profit to be made
and I would never upgrade my rig if I did not believe it would lead to
higher profits in the future
Happy Holidays, Mike
George




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

[EggHd]

<< This isn't a choice, it's an example of someone not making a decision
as to what will sell, or what's good music, and leaving it up to
people who are willing to take a chance. >>

People do understand that it's the accounts (store, chains) that decide what to
buy from the labels correct? You won't find the same smaller titles at Borders
that you would find at Tower for instance. Different buyers.

<< It doesn't bother me as much to miss
out on hearing Artist X than it does to buy Artist Y on a whim and not
enjoy my purchase. >>

Are you an active record buyer? Impulse from what you see in a store? Shelf
space is exdpensive for retailers. In most cases they return over what they
percive to be a 6 week supply based on units being sold per week at that ONE
store not chin wide. But they MAY keep one or 2 in stock.

<< They "sign" more than they intend to develop. >>

remember it's MUCH more expensive to market an album than it is to produce it.





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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> and how many artists would be given a chance if there was not really huge
> piles of money to be made when one "Hits"

Every one who puts up his own money and doesn't worry about making a
hit but just feels that his music is important enough so that it
should be available to the public.

> I put forth the artist would have to prove the ability to produce and sell a
> 1/2 million copies before a studio would even talk to them if there was not
> that fat profit .

The artist can't really prove that, but a good A&R person generally
has the experience to tell whether there's potential. Sometimes it
works out, sometimes it doesn't. If he picks more losers than winners,
he doesn't get to keep his job.

> I would not be doing sound for a living if there was no profit to be made
> and I would never upgrade my rig if I did not believe it would lead to
> higher profits in the future

That's a healthy attutude and good business sense. Obviously you're in
a good position to know what upgrades make sense for you and you're
probably right most of the time. Just don't take any wooden $485 knobs
unless your clients demand them and can show you the money. <g>




--
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> << It doesn't bother me as much to miss
> out on hearing Artist X than it does to buy Artist Y on a whim and not
> enjoy my purchase. >>
>
> Are you an active record buyer? Impulse from what you see in a store?

Nope. I rarely buy anything that I haven't heard, even if I know the
artist. I'm terrible for business. But then most of the musicians that
I know have music as a sideline, even some really, really great
musicians.

> Shelf
> space is exdpensive for retailers. In most cases they return over what they
> percive to be a 6 week supply based on units being sold per week at that ONE
> store not chin wide. But they MAY keep one or 2 in stock.

I read pretty much the same thing about ice cream in grocery stores.
The makers fight for space in the freezer case, and only specialty
stores carry more than a few flavors that any particular manufactuer
makes.

> remember it's MUCH more expensive to market an album than it is to produce it.

Easily - so they sign and record a lot of stuff, and market what they
think will pay the bills. They might as well release some or all of
the rest, and occasionally some independent radio station might pick
up a "loser" and it'll become a local hit (or even, I suppose, a
national hit - it could happen) but those are the surprises that make
the business interesting.



--
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 here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[George Gleason]

.. Obviously you're in
> a good position to know what upgrades make sense for you and you're
> probably right most of the time

LOL I have a shop full of "experiance" for sale cheap
George


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
"ryanm" > wrote:

> while money is the driving force behind the
> creation of music, the lowest common denominator is all that gets any real
> attention

To this I would say "bull****".

Go read the recent Rolling Stone magazine with the 500 greatest albums
of all time, then tell me how many of those albums are "not about the
music" and were chosen based on the "lowest common deniminator".

Fads in music may come and go, and the musically untalented and soulless
may make a lot of money in the short term. But over time, the deserving
rise to the top and stay there.

People still buy Billy Holiday and Miles Davis CDs by the tens of
thousands every year, and "Vanilla Ice" and "The Macarena" are laughing
stocks despite making a lot of money for a brief moment.

Time takes care of the justice in most cases.

CT

[ryanm]

"Charles Thomas" > wrote in
message news:cthomas-
>
> To this I would say "bull****".
>
> Go read the recent Rolling Stone magazine with the 500
> greatest albums of all time, then tell me how many of those
> albums are "not about the music" and were chosen based
> on the "lowest common deniminator".
>
Rolling Stone's "greatest of all time" lists have little or nothing to
do with reality. In their top 100 guitarists of all time, they had Curt
Cobain at #7 and Eddie Van Halen at #73. Nuff said...

ryanm

[ryanm]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
>
> based on what? The public's taste? get rid of the labels and
> this taste will change?
>
Not at all. But every release doesn't have to be homogenized and dumbed
down for the lowest common denominator. About the most well-written and
thoughtful music I've heard from the industry lately was Damian Rice's
Volcano, and that was a cheesy 4 chord ballad that probably took him all of
20 minutes to write. Where is the music? Not the dog and pony show, but the
*music*.

> Who is no one? Does anyone take products to market that
> people don't want?
>
This is exactly my point. They only take to market products that they
think *everyone* will want, which means that they are sort of suited to
everyone but directly suited to no one. Everything must be homogenized
before release, essentially stripping the soul and life from it before
anyone ever hears it.

> << Do the majors even bother with an artists they think will only go gold
these
> days? >>
>
> Are you serious?
>
Yes, I'm serious, do they?

ryanm

[ryanm]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
>
> and how many artists would be given a chance if there was
> not really huge piles of money to be made when one "Hits"
> I put forth the artist would have to prove the ability to produce
> and sell a 1/2 million copies before a studio would even talk to
> them if there was not that fat profit .
>
And this is the root of the problem, in my opinion.

ryanm

[George Gleason]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> "EggHd" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > based on what? The public's taste? get rid of the labels and
> > this taste will change?
> >
> Not at all. But every release doesn't have to be homogenized and
dumbed
> down for the lowest common denominator. About the most well-written and
> thoughtful music I've heard from the industry lately was Damian Rice's
> Volcano, and that was a cheesy 4 chord ballad that probably took him all
of
> 20 minutes to write. Where is the music? Not the dog and pony show, but
the
> *music*.
>
> > Who is no one? Does anyone take products to market that
> > people don't want?
> >
> This is exactly my point. They only take to market products that they
> think *everyone* will want, which means that they are sort of suited to
> everyone but directly suited to no one. Everything must be homogenized
> before release, essentially stripping the soul and life from it before
> anyone ever hears it.
>
> > << Do the majors even bother with an artists they think will only go
gold
> these
> > days? >>
> >
> > Are you serious?
> >
> Yes, I'm serious, do they?
>
every release , or even most releases are not from the majors, they will
never get near Gold status often selling in the low thousands of units
yet they are marketed
these are the recodings that will be eliminated first in the war over free
Vs profit



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

[George Gleason]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> "George Gleason" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > and how many artists would be given a chance if there was
> > not really huge piles of money to be made when one "Hits"
> > I put forth the artist would have to prove the ability to produce
> > and sell a 1/2 million copies before a studio would even talk to
> > them if there was not that fat profit .
> >
> And this is the root of the problem, in my opinion.
>
what is the root?
that a few cash cows fund thousands of releases by struggling bands ?
I see that as a good thing


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

[George Gleason]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> "Charles Thomas" > wrote in
> message news:cthomas-
> >
> > To this I would say "bull****".
> >
> > Go read the recent Rolling Stone magazine with the 500
> > greatest albums of all time, then tell me how many of those
> > albums are "not about the music" and were chosen based
> > on the "lowest common deniminator".
> >
> Rolling Stone's "greatest of all time" lists have little or nothing to
> do with reality. In their top 100 guitarists of all time, they had Curt
> Cobain at #7 and Eddie Van Halen at #73. Nuff said...
>
> ryanm
>
we agree here
neither should be on the chart
george


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

[ryanm]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
>
> what is the root?
> that a few cash cows fund thousands of releases by struggling bands ?
> I see that as a good thing
>
In my opinion, it would be far better to make the band/artist prove
themselves first, at least in a local market. This would reduce the amount
of investment required for the labels, and would raise the average quality
of the music being produced. As opposed to simply picking an attractive
person and training them to be a "pop artist".

ryanm

[ryanm]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
>
> we agree here
> neither should be on the chart
>
EVH at least meets the minimum common sense requirement of being a
guitarist.

ryanm

[EggHd]

<< About the most well-written and
thoughtful music I've heard from the industry lately was Damian Rice's
Volcano, and that was a cheesy 4 chord ballad that probably took him all of
20 minutes to write. >>

How do you know how long it took him to write that? How did you find out about
Damion Rice? I'm curious.

<< Where is the music? Not the dog and pony show, but the
*music*. >>

All over the place. there are about 20K CDs released every year. Why are you
focusing on the titles that catch on with the public and than mad at the
companies how provide that music as well as the Ryan Adams', the Travis' the
Flaming Lip's The Kings of Leon's, The Jet's whatever. You seem all ****ed
about the record that radio shoose to play and that catch on with the public.



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

[EggHd]

<< This is exactly my point. They only take to market products that they
think *everyone* will want, which means that they are sort of suited to
everyone but directly suited to no one. >>

This is false and shows you know every little about the record companies. You
may be shocked that they are as frustrated as you are at what the public
latches on to and the short attention span today.

This isn't to say they are ****ed but that's another issue.

<< Everything must be homogenized
before release, essentially stripping the soul and life from it before
anyone ever hears it. >>

You must not look very deep.

<< Do the majors even bother with an artists they think will only go gold
these
> days? >>
Are you serious?
Yes, I'm serious, do they? >>

How would a label know who is going to go gold and when before they are
released?



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

[EggHd]

<< In my opinion, it would be far better to make the band/artist prove
themselves first, at least in a local market. >>

That happens but it's the artists that do that or should be doing that.

<< his would reduce the amount
of investment required for the labels, and would raise the average quality
of the music being produced. >>

But this goes against what you have said before. if it's only the slick music
that gets notices what will change? What you may not understand is that the
record companis react to the marketplace. they don't create it and never did.
They'd like to.

<< As opposed to simply picking an attractive
person and training them to be a "pop artist". >>

You are looking at one segment. The pop artists are a very small part of the
rosters.




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

[reddred]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
>You seem all ****ed
> about the record that radio shoose to play and that catch on with the
public.
>

Why do you choose to constantly misreperesent the way the industry works,
from discussions of advances and now the idea that people who work at a
radio station choose anything, or that radio plays what people want to hear.
That's part of the problem, and why music has become entirely ephemeral. So
why the constant apology?

jb

[Mike]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
> what is the root?
> that a few cash cows fund thousands of releases by struggling bands ?
> I see that as a good thing

George, wait a sec. On the one hand, you say that a few cash cows help fund
the nonprofitable many. But others (or maybe you) have pointed out that the
best way for a no-name is to get signed by an indie, where they are not
looking for a hitmaker and where they actually share better income with the
artist. These indies obviously are NOT using big names to fund the lesser
artists, so how can they produce those artists? By not investing huge sums
in overpriced promotion for starters, and by not expecting the artists to be
hitmakers right away for second. They use good business sense in allowing
those artists to mature and build an audience.

[George]

In article >,
"ryanm" > wrote:

> "George Gleason" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > what is the root?
> > that a few cash cows fund thousands of releases by struggling bands ?
> > I see that as a good thing
> >
> In my opinion, it would be far better to make the band/artist prove
> themselves first, at least in a local market. This would reduce the amount
> of investment required for the labels, and would raise the average quality
> of the music being produced. As opposed to simply picking an attractive
> person and training them to be a "pop artist".
>
> ryanm
>
>

yeah John Popper was a real babe magnet, and that Kurt cobain, just
another pretty face
how about Norman Blake and chet atkins
all just manufactured Icons couldn't pick a note
you sure make a solid case that all music is just packaged schmaltz
..,all window dressing but no substence
G

[George]

In article >,
"Mike" > wrote:

> "George Gleason" > wrote in message
> ...
> > what is the root?
> > that a few cash cows fund thousands of releases by struggling bands ?
> > I see that as a good thing
>
> George, wait a sec. On the one hand, you say that a few cash cows help fund
> the nonprofitable many. But others (or maybe you) have pointed out that the
> best way for a no-name is to get signed by an indie, where they are not
> looking for a hitmaker and where they actually share better income with the
> artist. These indies obviously are NOT using big names to fund the lesser
> artists, so how can they produce those artists? By not investing huge sums
> in overpriced promotion for starters, and by not expecting the artists to be
> hitmakers right away for second. They use good business sense in allowing
> those artists to mature and build an audience.
>
>

the indie is looking for that cash cow as well, they do the best they
can to release enough material to hope one really produces,I bet once
they have a artist that is selling well he moves up the food chain
and switches from the big cheese at a small regional label , to get his
chance at a major release
at this point he is living off the past cash cows the label has already
produced
eliminate the profit(the huge profit a major can generate) and the
artist in question stays a local hero with a few hundered cd sold
a lesser artist(a high risk of failure) to capitol records, most likely
was a huge seller for a smaller label

[EggHd]

<< Why do you choose to constantly misreperesent the way the industry works,
from discussions of advances and now the idea that people who work at a
radio station choose anything, or that radio plays what people want to hear. >>

You are kidding right? have you heard of ratings?

Please correct me with more than that gerenal statement.

<< That's part of the problem, and why music has become entirely ephemeral. So
why the constant apology? >>

From?



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

[reddred]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << Why do you choose to constantly misreperesent the way the industry
works,
> from discussions of advances and now the idea that people who work at a
> radio station choose anything, or that radio plays what people want to
hear. >>
>
> You are kidding right? have you heard of ratings?
>

Whatever. 'Choose one of these ten songs as your favorite'. Used to be you
could call and ask to hear something.

jb



> Please correct me with more than that gerenal statement.
>
> << That's part of the problem, and why music has become entirely
ephemeral. So
> why the constant apology? >>
>
> From?
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Whatever. 'Choose one of these ten songs as your favorite'. Used to be you
could call and ask to hear something. >>

What are you talking about?



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

[reddred]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << Whatever. 'Choose one of these ten songs as your favorite'. Used to be
you
> could call and ask to hear something. >>
>
> What are you talking about?
>

FM Radio.

jb

[EggHd]

<< What are you talking about?

FM Radio. >>

Do you understand how radio works? It seems not.



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

[reddred]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << What are you talking about?
>
> FM Radio. >>
>
> Do you understand how radio works? It seems not.
>

What are you, twelve? Got a short memory or something?

jb

[Greg]

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1071615338k@trad>...
> In article > writes:
>
> > Like I said, maybe, just maybe, the destruction
> > of the whole industry and starting over with only the people who are in it
> > for the music and not the money would be a good thing.
>
> But even people into music gotta eat. Maybe by then we'd have evolved
> to the point where we can metabolize plastic.

I hope so. My daytime job for the last twenty years has been computer
science, and it isn't clear I can keep making a living at it. I asked
my boss last week what it would take to get a promotion, and he said
I'd have to transfer to our subsidiary in India. Trouble is that I'd
be paid in rupees, worth maybe a third of my current salary. At that
rate I might as well be trying to make a living in music.

So don't think it's only the music industry that is going down -- with
most of the world living on 2 bucks a day, and most of them competing
for our jobs, there ain't gonna be no money in online anything, or
offline either.