Re: Don Henley on The Music Industry

[EggHd]

<< Right... but what percentage of first releases by major label bands would
you estimate get airplay in enough markets to actually change their short
term fiancial circumstances? >>

Plus it would take a year to come in. So not much chance.

<< I still don't think that you'd choose getting signed as a means of meeting
any sort of *short term* economic goals that involved living above the
poverty-line. >>

It depends on the advance, number of band members/solo act etc. But you are
right getting signed has nothing to do with success or income.

If Beck gets a 100K advance on top of the budget it is much different than sly
and the family stone.




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

[PRS Geek]

"agent86" > wrote in message
. ..

Jeff Liberatore (me) said:

> > Sure it is... Ask the "artist" if it's not important. I'm sure he/she
will
> > say, "yeah, I need that $$$ to live"... Especially, if that's all they
do
> > for a "living"... Key word "living/income"...

> But there's no constitutional right to make a living at any particular
> occupation. Free enterprise only means that you have a right to TRY to
> make a living at whatever you want (within the law, of course). That's
why
> I used the illustration on tobacco farmers & blacksmiths. You have to be
> able to produce a product that consumers are WILLING to pay for. And you
> have to position yourself in the market pricewise, so that you can sell
> enough units to cover your expenses and turn some amount of profit. If
you
> can't do that, you're in the worng business.

Sure, I agree with that, no doubt... But in any event, regardless if said
artsist could sell 250K units or not, he's still entitled to his $$$. IF
there's any to be had. Pretty much needs airplay to make any real $$$...

Below, you get into the crux of the matter for indie/new artists. At which
point you'll see that I agree with you on some aspects. IOW, when the artist
says it's OK, then, well, go ahead and download.

> For the purposes of this discussion, they're all "commodities". I didn't
> intend to make a distinction between those I consider to be artistic and
> those I don't. "Artist" is just one of those words that has come to be
> used to describe things that it's really not descriptive of. I have
> similar issues with the popular uses of "Alternative" and Progressive".
> Sorry for the confusion.

Gotcha' man... I have similar issues as well. ;-)

> > But the
> > REAL dilemma is/are new artsists who may be struggling because they
aren't
> > getting the sales they MIGHT get without pirating. As far as established
> > artists are concerned, they TOO deserve to get paid.

> Most independent (if that's what you mean by "new") artist I talk to
aren't
> worried about downloads taking much income away from them. The internet's
> the best tool they have to get their music heard. If people haven't heard
> of you, they're not going to buy your CD anyway. And since independents
> have to shoulder the cost of production & distribution themselves, the
> margin on CD sales is pretty slim to start with.

Right, and this is where the discussion takes a turn... I totally agree and
understand this is the best way for an indie/new (or whatever) can get heard
and maybe even get a buzz started about them. and all that music is just
sitting on some server somewhere just waiting to be downloaded. even music
from The Beatles, Madonna, Dave Matthews, etc... But these guys generally
want people to BUY the CD's... I draw the distinction with "by permission
from the artist/label"... But that's never gonna' happen anytime soon. It's
now in our culture to steal music.

> As an example, I have a friend who recorded his major label debut album in
> 1996, but before it was released, the label was bought by another company
&
> his album was shelved. It was finally released in late 1999 on a
> subsidiary label. It received a 4-star review in Rolling Stone, but since
> there was no label support, he & his wife had to do all the promotional
> work themselves. He has since released 3 more CDs on various independent
> labels. All are sold from his website at $15, on Amazon at $18.50, & at
> his live shows for $15 (he typically does about 10 shows a month up & down
> the east coast). His wife told me that the only way they make money on
CDs
> is if you buy one at the shows. Overhead eats up all the revenue from
> online sales. But what you REALLY get from CD sales is the hope that your
> fans will turn their friends on to your music.

Yeah... It's a tough biz! Good luck to your friend. I only hope when/if he
finally pays all his dues and some $$$ is starting to come his way, that he
doesn't have a hit that everyone steals off the internet because it's easy
and no one is policing things well enough to protect what he deserves. I
believe it's his right to demand that his music is on NO server and NOT
available for download, ever...

Jeff

[John Washburn]

"EggHd" > wrote:
> << Right... but what percentage of first releases by major label bands
would
> you estimate get airplay in enough markets to actually change their short
> term fiancial circumstances? >>
>
> Plus it would take a year to come in. So not much chance.

Right.

>
> << I still don't think that you'd choose getting signed as a means of
meeting
> any sort of *short term* economic goals that involved living above the
> poverty-line. >>
>
> It depends on the advance, number of band members/solo act etc. But you
are
> right getting signed has nothing to do with success or income.
>
> If Beck gets a 100K advance on top of the budget it is much different than
sly
> and the family stone.

Oh, of course.

But even still, 100K isn't very much money after management takes 20%,
lawyer 15-20%, biz manager 4-5%, pay off outstanding debts incurred while
getting the deal, etc. Before you even get around to dealing w/ taxes, there
could easily be less than $30-40K left, from which you also still have
finance your operating expenses, etc.

Plus, if you're a solo artist, everytime you get on stage or walk into a
recording or rehearsal studio--anything--you have to pay everybody in sight.
Even though the money is split more ways with a band situation, it's
sometimes possible to do more with less money overall because several key
members of the team are all working for really cheap.

-jw

[EggHd]

<< But even still, 100K isn't very much money after management takes 20%,
lawyer 15-20%, biz manager 4-5%, pay off outstanding debts incurred while
getting the deal, etc. >>

I would hope that the manager was getting 15%, the lawyer fee would be
negotiated into the deal (and 15 to 20%? who's is giving that kinda money
away?) and an act like this should not have a business manager at this point
especially getting that kind of %.

<< Before you even get around to dealing w/ taxes, there
could easily be less than $30-40K left, from which you also still have
finance your operating expenses, etc. >>

Those numbers aren't real world, they would be worst case when an act was taken
to the cleaners.




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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> On the contrary, the artist's responsibility is to the society - to change
> it for the better

Oh, horse manure! An artist under contract has responsibility to those
who pay him - is responsibility is to attract enough paying customers
so that he can make his share. I guess you know what Anita O'Day's
contribution to changing society was.


--
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

[agent86]

PRS Geek wrote:

> Yeah... It's a tough biz! Good luck to your friend. I only hope when/if he
> finally pays all his dues and some $$$ is starting to come his way, that
> he doesn't have a hit that everyone steals off the internet because it's
> easy and no one is policing things well enough to protect what he
> deserves. I believe it's his right to demand that his music is on NO
> server and NOT available for download, ever...

I don't know about dues. This particular individual has managed to make a
living as a singer/songwriter since the mid 70s, so that's a pretty decent
accomplishment in itself. Having spent a good many years in Nashville and
having several "near misses", I don't think he has many illusions at this
point. I thought he was a good example of how little most performers
actually lose due to downloading (compared to what the RIAA propaganda
claims). If you happen to find all the songs on his last album on a
download site & download all of them, he makes just as much as if you
bought it from Amazon. But hopefully either way, you'll buy a ticket to
his show the next time he's in your area.

Sure he "owns" his music, and has a right to "demand" that it not be
shared online. But he doesn't have the resources to enforce that demand.
I don't know who has the resources to enforce anything successfully on the
web. When the internet was built by the DOD, one of the design criteria
was that it should be damn near impossible to stop anything from being
transmitted.

[agent86]

John Washburn wrote:

> You don't sign a record deal cause you think you'll make better money in
> the conceivable future than you could doing something else.

You MIGHT sign a record deal cause you THINK you'll make better money in
the conceivable future than you could doing something else.

[John Washburn]

"agent86" wrote:
> John Washburn wrote:
>
> > You don't sign a record deal cause you think you'll make better money in
> > the conceivable future than you could doing something else.
>
> You MIGHT sign a record deal cause you THINK you'll make better money in
> the conceivable future than you could doing something else.
>

You might. But if that's your primary motivation, than the huge likelyhood
is that you'll wish you hadn't.

[agent86]

John Washburn wrote:

>> > You don't sign a record deal cause you think you'll make better money
>> > in the conceivable future than you could doing something else.
>>
>> You MIGHT sign a record deal cause you THINK you'll make better money in
>> the conceivable future than you could doing something else.
>>
>
> You might. But if that's your primary motivation, than the huge likelyhood
> is that you'll wish you hadn't.

Right, that was the significance of the CAPS.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> >> How anybody makes their living is not really relevant.
> > Oh, it is to them.
> Sure it is to them. But it's not necessarily relevent to the argument.

I didn't bring it up.

> As an analogy, consider a pawnshop. Traditionally, pawnshops are not
> located in the best neighborhoods, so they are easy targets for
> shoplifters, burglers & armed robbers. The constitution guarantees any
> individual the right to TRY to run a pawnshop, just like anyone can TRY to
> be an MTV crotchgrabber. But if Johnny Pawnshop can't turn a profit in
> spite of his circumstances (possibly by investing in window bars,
> surveilance cameras, better locks, alarms and a security guard, or by
> adjusting his prices so that losses are covered), then he needs to find
> some other way to make a living.

And this is relevant?

> There's a whole lot of people who can't make a living in the music
> business.

That's for sure, and the reason is that they really aren't talented
enough to find enough buyers for what they have to sell. You can talk
about your very talented people who would never get heard if it wasn't
for the Internet, but that's exactly the problem - they only exposure
they get is to people who aren't accustomed to paying for the music
they hear. There's a solution to that - get a day job, or get a patron.

> Problem or no, that's still the way the free enterprise works.

Not really. Free enterprise works because someone makes something and
hopefully sells it for more than it cost to make. If it costs nothing
to make and sells for nothing, then nobody's making money.

> You can't
> force people to buy your product, especially if they can get what they
> consider to be a comparable product for less.

True. You can't force me to buy the new Britney Spears CD for $17 when
I can get a Dinah Washington reissue CD for $10. But you also can't
force me to buy the BS CD when I can get a kind of rough MP3 copy for
free and not enjoy it any less than the genuine article.

> (NOT for free, since the risk
> of getting sued, arrested or going to hell does represent some cost,
> however intangible.)

Wrong - it's free until you get caught.

> But whatever you think of downloaders, & whatever you think of the
> industry, the RIAA has about as much chance of eliminating file sharing as
> the DEA has of eliminating marijuana.

This is true. I'm not an RIAA booster. However I think that something
must be done that will make downloading commercially-for-sale music
for free so unpalatable that people will stop doing it. The only
suggestion I have is a powerful, computer-destroying virus planted in
enough music downloads so that people get the idea that the risk is
great enough to quit.

> So, the labels have two choices. They can try to determine at what price
> point they can sell enough units to maximize their profits & adjust their
> pricing & production levels accordingly while they try to develop a new
> business model (traditional economic theory). Or they can keep spending
> more & more money shooting at a moving target & alienating the customers
> they have left.

I think that we have good evidence that lowering prices won't change
freeloaders into paying customers, and if you lower prices, you have
less money. iTunes and other paid download services notwithstanding,
those are just about breaking even.

Let those who aren't yet good enough to get a record contract freely
give away their music. Then see if the majors' business drops because
people are opting for the legal alternatives. Who's gonna be first?

--
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

[Phil Brown]

>Those numbers aren't real world, they would be worst case when an act was
>taken
>to the cleaners.
>

Sorry, mate, I'd call them best case. Worst case is when you end up oweing them
dough.
Phil Brown

[agent86]

> if Johnny Pawnshop can't turn a profit in
>> spite of his circumstances (possibly by investing in window bars,
>> surveilance cameras, better locks, alarms and a security guard, or by
>> adjusting his prices so that losses are covered), then he needs to find
>> some other way to make a living.
>
> And this is relevant?

Only as a round about way of pointing out that there is theft in every
industry. The businesses that can minimize it & make a profit in spite of
it are the ones that survive. The others don't stay in business.


>> There's a whole lot of people who can't make a living in the music
>> business.
>
> That's for sure, and the reason is that they really aren't talented
> enough to find enough buyers for what they have to sell.

That's a pretty broad generalization.


>> Problem or no, that's still the way the free enterprise works.
>
> Not really. Free enterprise works because someone makes something and
> hopefully sells it for more than it cost to make. If it costs nothing
> to make and sells for nothing, then nobody's making money.

Does this mean that you don't consider a totally unregulated barter economy
to be free enterprise? Funny, they told me in econ 101 that barter was the
earliest foundation of free enterprise. Person A buys CD-A and rips it to
mp3. Person B buys CD-B and rips it to mp3. Then they trade mp3s. Both
invested resources (cost of the original CD plus their time, computer, &
ISP costs). Both received something for their investment (the other mp3).


>> You can't
>> force people to buy your product, especially if they can get what they
>> consider to be a comparable product for less.
>> (NOT for free, since the risk
>> of getting sued, arrested or going to hell does represent some cost,
>> however intangible.)
>
> Wrong - it's free until you get caught.

Don't underestimate the value of the RISK of getting caught. Why do you
think there's so much money tird up in the illegal drug trade.


> I'm not an RIAA booster. However I think that something
> must be done that will make downloading commercially-for-sale music
> for free so unpalatable that people will stop doing it. The only
> suggestion I have is a powerful, computer-destroying virus planted in
> enough music downloads so that people get the idea that the risk is
> great enough to quit.

But releasing a virus into the wild is a MUCH more serious crime than
copyright infringement. That would blow the argument about srealing right
out of the water.


> I think that we have good evidence that lowering prices won't change
> freeloaders into paying customers, and if you lower prices, you have
> less money.

But lowering prices may very well incite your existing paying customers to
buy more units. And it MIGHT help prevent them from becoming freeloaders
in the future.

The word "Respect" has been bandied about a lot in this thread. I'm not
sure I go for the respect angle, but a lot of people justify ripping off
the record companied based on a belief that the record companies have been
ripping off customers for years. When CDs came out, they cost $15.95 (if
memory serves, anybody who remembers a time before CDs is old enough to
have some memory loss). Vinyl LPs were $7.95. The record companies
justified the price on the basis of higher production costs. Well, now CDs
cost about a nickel to produce, but the retail price is $17.95 (last time I
checked, I actually buy most of my music at concerts these days). I'm not
going to be the one to accuse anybody of price fixing (which would be a
crime). But it's curious that when one label raises prices, the others
usually follow suit pretty soon afterward (wink, wink, nod, nod) It
certainly gives the appearance of a cartel.

[John Washburn]

"agent86" wrote:
> John Washburn wrote:
>
> >> > You don't sign a record deal cause you think you'll make better money
> >> > in the conceivable future than you could doing something else.
> >>
> >> You MIGHT sign a record deal cause you THINK you'll make better money
in
> >> the conceivable future than you could doing something else.
> >>
> >
> > You might. But if that's your primary motivation, than the huge
likelyhood
> > is that you'll wish you hadn't.
>
> Right, that was the significance of the CAPS.

Yeah. I think we got into a semantic problem with the use of the universal
"you".

[Artie Turner]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article > writes:
>
> I suspect that there's some truth to that, but there are "soft-core"
> downloaders too, people who see something interesting so they grab it,
> maybe keep it, maybe not. Still, if you got it for free and it's
> something that, in another form, is for sale, you're denying someone
> deserved income by your action, and that's a form of theft.
>
>
>>Well, I disagree that they "take whatever they can." Once again, music
>>is not fungible like money. They take what they *want* for free, and my
>>suspicion is that most of what is getting stolen is pop, rock, rap etc.
>
>
> And this makes it OK?

How many times am I going to have to answer that? No, Mike, it doesn't
make it OK. I'm drawing a conclusion from the observable actions of
downloaders. Looks like young people are doing most of the stealing from
pop, rock, and rap/hip hop. It's not OK, but it's happening just the
same. There's folk, religious, classical there for the pirating, but it
doesn't get stolen. I'd launch into my respect routine again, but it's a
pile of warm glue on the floor next to me. Maybe I'll fix the cracks in
the old upright with it...
>
>
>>I know it is somewhat of a stretch, but I see a correlation between the
>>genre and the liklihood of theft.
>
>
> I think there's some truth to that, but it still doesn't make it OK on
> any level.

See the above.
>
>
>>I sense that certain forms of music engender a sense of
>>respect between the artist and the consumer, and that respect makes that
>>consumer less apt to steal from the artist.
>
>
> I don't think it's so much a matter of respect for the artist, but
> rather that it simply doesn't occur to a a person who really likes
> classicical music to go out in search for free downloads on the net.
> Chances are that person enjoys the music enough to want to have it in
> a high quality form that he can listen to in his living room, not an
> MP3 file to play on his computer while he's surfing the net.

That's probably it.

Artie
>
>
> --
> 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

[EggHd]

<< Sorry, mate, I'd call them best case. Worst case is when you end up oweing
them
dough. >>

Ok we disagree. All good.



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

[hank alrich]

Artie Turner wrote:

> My guess is that the hard-core P2P downloaders are not stealing classical,
> folk and religious music just because they can.

How can one steal that of which one is totally unaware?

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> writes:

> > How anybody makes their living is not really relevant.
>
> Oh, it is to them. Which would you rather be doing for a living -
> grabbing your crotch on television while lip-synching and putting
> $100K in the bank for three minutes work (OK, three hours including
> rehearsals) or flipping hamburgers? I know, you're a self-respecting
> kind of a guy who'd rather flip hamburgers than be a major label
> artist, but me, I'd rather have the money.

For only an additional $75K I will grab my crotch with both hands.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

agent86 wrote:

> John Washburn wrote:

> > You don't sign a record deal cause you think you'll make better money in
> > the conceivable future than you could doing something else.

> You MIGHT sign a record deal cause you THINK you'll make better money in
> the conceivable future than you could doing something else.

Aaah, the old sucker punch. <g>

--
ha

[ryanm]

"agent86" > wrote in message
...
>
> > That's a good point.
>
> Yeah, but I usually wear a hat so people won't notice <|;-)
>
Could be worse, you could be one of those round-heads.

I don't hear too many Land of Point references anymore. Good movie...

ryanm

[ryanm]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << Millions of people obviously have so little respect for *some*
> artists that they steal their work in the same breath with professing
> love for them >>
>
> Movies aren't far beind.
>
Movies have been pirated on the internet, through the very same sources
as music, for at least 6 years now. You're not hearing them complain because
DVD sales are up. When DVD sales drop and they need a scapegoat, you will
hear them start to complain about piracy.

ryanm

[Ted Spencer]

EggHd wrote:

<< No just the people who can't see the difference between a shift and theft.
If
people were using this paradigm shift to get into your bank account...... How
far can we be to that happening?
>>


Finally...the perfect analogy. In the age of internet banking a "shift" or
"download" of someone's wealth to another's is quite possible. It's probably
almost as simple technically as a shift of "intellectual property" (music).
When Kazaa or something like it ("benignly") enables finacial "sharing", how
will *you* feel when your bank account has been "shared"?

Brace yourself. "Sharing" may not feel so warm and fuzzy after all...



Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > if Johnny Pawnshop can't turn a profit in
> >> spite of his circumstances (possibly by investing in window bars

> > And this is relevant?
>
> Only as a round about way of pointing out that there is theft in every
> industry. The businesses that can minimize it & make a profit in spite of
> it are the ones that survive. The others don't stay in business.

There's probably more theft at Wal-Mart than at any pawn shop. I think
the bars on the windows are more a statement that "you might find
something valuable in here" than to actually keep burgulars out. Pawn
shops deal more in money than stuff, and its security is well taken care
of.

> >> There's a whole lot of people who can't make a living in the music
> >> business.
> >
> > That's for sure, and the reason is that they really aren't talented
> > enough to find enough buyers for what they have to sell.
>
> That's a pretty broad generalization.

I think that it's even a broader generalization to think that anyone
who tries to write a song or sing, or makes a recording has talent
worth paying for. If that was the case, why do we have a music
industry at all? People could just make their own really great and
wonderful music.

> > Not really. Free enterprise works because someone makes something and
> > hopefully sells it for more than it cost to make. If it costs nothing
> > to make and sells for nothing, then nobody's making money.
>
> Does this mean that you don't consider a totally unregulated barter economy
> to be free enterprise? Funny, they told me in econ 101 that barter was the
> earliest foundation of free enterprise.

Sorry, you won't get me arguing economic definitions like "free
enterprise" with you. I didn't take Econ 101. Intuitively I would
think that an economy is based on a standard medium of exchange (like
what we call "money" but maybe gold or sharks teeth or muskrat hides)
and not exchanging firewood for a song, or fish for potatoes.

> Person A buys CD-A and rips it to
> mp3. Person B buys CD-B and rips it to mp3. Then they trade mp3s. Both
> invested resources (cost of the original CD plus their time, computer, &
> ISP costs). Both received something for their investment (the other mp3).

The problem here is that the person who originally created the CD that
A bought gets nothing from B, who doesn't need to buy the CD because
he can enjoy the benefits without having the tangible, marketable
product. If A bought the CD for $15, sold an MP3 to B for $10, sent $8
to the artist who recorded the CD, and kept $2 for his trouble and
wear-and-tear on his computer, then you'd have something. But that
isn't going to happen.

> Don't underestimate the value of the RISK of getting caught. Why do you
> think there's so much money tird up in the illegal drug trade.

Because people are willing to pay it. Why do you think there's so much
crime (like theft, murder, mangling) involved in the drug trade?
Because there are some people who aren't willing to pay it. Suppose
you were to set up a "legitimate business" selling MP3 copies of
commercial CDs and paying royalties to the proper places. Then four
tough guys come to your house, beat you to a pulp, take your computer,
and start selling MP3s for $8 (or $12), tell the original artist that
he's only going to send him $6 per copy. That's "the drug problem."

> But releasing a virus into the wild is a MUCH more serious crime than
> copyright infringement. That would blow the argument about srealing right
> out of the water.

Why is it a more serious crime? If it's properly designed, it will
only infect the computers of those who download and play unlicensed
music. Is that any worse than a security guard who shoots a bank
robber? He doesn't shoot the legitimate customers (though,
unfortunately, the robber does, sometimes).

> But lowering prices may very well incite your existing paying customers to
> buy more units. And it MIGHT help prevent them from becoming freeloaders
> in the future.

That's a very weak "may well." I think that people have as much music
as they want. Those who want free music can listen to the radio. And
those who download almost certainly have computers that are capable of
bringing them very interesting on-line radio broadcast (for which
royalty payment arrangements have been made). Try KEXP, KBCS, WWOZ,
and the hundreds of specialized streaming audio programs such as
Bluegrasscountry.org, steelradio.org, and that one in Ohio that I
can't remember that's all folk music all the time.

> When CDs came out, they cost $15.95 (if
> memory serves, anybody who remembers a time before CDs is old enough to
> have some memory loss). Vinyl LPs were $7.95.

Right. And Life Savers were still a nickel. I don't think the price of
a CD has doubled in 20 years. Other things have. But I don't steal
candy.

> Well, now CDs
> cost about a nickel to produce, but the retail price is $17.95

That's the oldest bogus argument in the book. What about all the money
that went into making the music that's on the CD. Is that the free
part? A Windows CD costs $200 or more and that only costs a nickel to
manufacturer, too. And while you can play your music CD in any
legitimate CD player, you can't install a single current version of
Windows on every computer in the house, or your friend's house. Now is
THAT fair?

> But it's curious that when one label raises prices, the others
> usually follow suit pretty soon afterward (wink, wink, nod, nod) It
> certainly gives the appearance of a cartel.

You don't buy a lot of airline tickets, do you? That's an industry
where everybody follows the leader. The difference between plane
tickets and CDs is that they can adjust prices much more quickly to
follow demand, and they have many prices for essentially the same
thing. Suppose a CD cost $10 if you buy it three weeks before you
could play it and $20 if you wanted to take it home and play it
immediately?



--
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

[agent86]

>> >> There's a whole lot of people who can't make a living in the music
>> >> business.
>> >
>> > That's for sure, and the reason is that they really aren't talented
>> > enough to find enough buyers for what they have to sell.
>>
>> That's a pretty broad generalization.
>
> I think that it's even a broader generalization to think that anyone
> who tries to write a song or sing, or makes a recording has talent
> worth paying for.

I don't think I said that, and I didn't mean to imply it. There are
certainly some very talented people who have found it difficult to
impossible to earn a living at music in the long term. John Fogerty & Mark
Farner are two who spring to mind who lost damn near every thing they had
to the business. Fortunately, Fogerty managed to turn things aroung some
years after the "fall". Last I heard, Farner was still in bad shape.

Of course, the music business is not just the record industry. And the
definition of "making a living" may change several times over a person's
lifetime. A 20 year old may be able to support himself playing bar gigs at
night & teaching in the day time. But when he's 40, with a wife & kids
(and maybe one of the kids has cronic health problems), the he NEEDs a job
with health insurance, 401K, paid sick leave, etc. He's no less talented
than he was at 20 (probably more so, since he's had 20 more years of
practice), but he can't live on the same income he could back then.


> Sorry, you won't get me arguing economic definitions like "free
> enterprise" with you. I didn't take Econ 101. Intuitively I would
> think that an economy is based on a standard medium of exchange (like
> what we call "money" but maybe gold or sharks teeth or muskrat hides)
> and not exchanging firewood for a song, or fish for potatoes.

Fair enough.


> The problem here is that the person who originally created the CD that
> A bought gets nothing from B, who doesn't need to buy the CD because
> he can enjoy the benefits without having the tangible, marketable
> product. If A bought the CD for $15, sold an MP3 to B for $10, sent $8
> to the artist who recorded the CD, and kept $2 for his trouble and
> wear-and-tear on his computer, then you'd have something. But that
> isn't going to happen.

I agree it's a problem. But copyrights are actually a relatively recent
concept, and not necessarily a requirement in any economic model. I only
mention that because my point was to describe an barter based economic
system as an example of free enterprise. But, since we've agreed not to
discuss economic theory any more, I'll stop there.


>> Don't underestimate the value of the RISK of getting caught. Why do you
>> think there's so much money tird up in the illegal drug trade.
>
> Because people are willing to pay it. Why do you think there's so much
> crime (like theft, murder, mangling) involved in the drug trade?

People, generally speaking, are willing to pay other people to take risks
they aren't willing to take themselves. Among those risks are the theft,
murder & mangling you mention. There's also mandatory federal prison time
for production & distribution (as opposed to a fine & probation for first
offense simple possession).


>> But releasing a virus into the wild is a MUCH more serious crime than
>> copyright infringement. That would blow the argument about srealing
>> right out of the water.
>
> Why is it a more serious crime?

Short answer - Because the government says it is. Remember, copyrights
only exist by government mandate as well, so logically, the government
would be the final authority on such matters.


> If it's properly designed, it will
> only infect the computers of those who download and play unlicensed
> music.

Who would you suggest design it? Microsoft? What would the testing cycle
look like to make ABSOLUTELY sure it only infected the targeted machines?

> Is that any worse than a security guard who shoots a bank
> robber? He doesn't shoot the legitimate customers (though,
> unfortunately, the robber does, sometimes).

Even more unfortunately, security guards do sometimes shoot innocent
bystanders. So do cops, who typically have much better training to avoid
such occurrences than does the average security guard. And sometimes,
computer viruses do things their authors never expected.


>
>> But lowering prices may very well incite your existing paying customers
>> to
>> buy more units. And it MIGHT help prevent them from becoming freeloaders
>> in the future.
>
> That's a very weak "may well." I think that people have as much music
> as they want.

Do you have all the music you want? I don't. I own between 400 & 500 CDs,
& just under 200 LPs. I still buy more when I find music I like. These
days I buy mostly direct from the artists at concerts & festivals, or out
of the bargain bin at Border's. I'm not saying I wouldn't ever pay retail
for a major label release (if something came along that I really liked),
but it hasn't happened lately.


>> When CDs came out, they cost $15.95 (if
>> memory serves, anybody who remembers a time before CDs is old enough to
>> have some memory loss). Vinyl LPs were $7.95.
>
> Right. And Life Savers were still a nickel. I don't think the price of
> a CD has doubled in 20 years. Other things have. But I don't steal
> candy.
>
>> Well, now CDs
>> cost about a nickel to produce, but the retail price is $17.95
>
> That's the oldest bogus argument in the book. What about all the money
> that went into making the music that's on the CD. Is that the free
> part?

I'm talking about the DIFFERENCE between the cost of producing CDs as
opposed to LPs. (you snipped that part.) I'm not arguing the cost of
producing the music, but THAT shouldn't be any higher for CDs than for LPs
for a couple of reasons. First, in the case of older records which were
already released on vinyl, much of those costs were already covered from LP
sales. Second, for newer releases, technologies such as MIDI & ProTools
have led to much of the production work being done in smaller, less
expensive studios, or even off site in home project studios. Obviously,
this is not ALWAYS the case, but in any event, content production costs fof
CDs shouldn't be substantially higher than for vinyl, even with inflation.


> A Windows CD costs $200 or more and that only costs a nickel to
> manufacturer, too. And while you can play your music CD in any
> legitimate CD player, you can't install a single current version of
> Windows on every computer in the house, or your friend's house. Now is
> THAT fair?

No, it's not fair, & it one of the main reasons I don't use Winblows. That
and a general lack of quality & security.


>> But it's curious that when one label raises prices, the others
>> usually follow suit pretty soon afterward (wink, wink, nod, nod) It
>> certainly gives the appearance of a cartel.
>
> You don't buy a lot of airline tickets, do you?

Probably not as many as you do.

> That's an industry
> where everybody follows the leader.

It's also an industry with a completely different business model, but still
price wars do occur from time to time for selected routes. Aside from
Walmart & Best Buy undercutting everyone at the retail level, I can't ever
recall record companies competing with each other on price.

> The difference between plane
> tickets and CDs is that they can adjust prices much more quickly to
> follow demand, and they have many prices for essentially the same
> thing. Suppose a CD cost $10 if you buy it three weeks before you
> could play it and $20 if you wanted to take it home and play it
> immediately?

Another big difference is that there is a real, tangible value in geting
from Point A to Point B faster than you could drive there. While music has
been an important part of human culture ever since our earliest ancestors
began beating sticks together, there is no real intrinsic value to recorded
music. So, the only way any meaningful actual value can be assigned to it
is in the marketplace. If the market value begins to approach zero for a
large percentage of your targeted customers (for whatever reason), then you
have a serious problem.

[agent86]

ryanm wrote:

> "agent86" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > That's a good point.
>>
>> Yeah, but I usually wear a hat so people won't notice <|;-)
>>
> Could be worse, you could be one of those round-heads.
>
> I don't hear too many Land of Point references anymore. Good movie...
>
> ryanm


That's the Harry Nilsson cartoon with the kid Oblio & his dog Arrow, right?

[EggHd]

<< That's the Harry Nilsson cartoon with the kid Oblio & his dog Arrow, right?
>>

I alwasy thought that was called "The Point".



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

[EggHd]

<< You're not hearing them complain because
DVD sales are up. >>

You are kidding right? They just went through the screenrs issues re Oscars
and one person was arrested for uploading screeners.



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

[EggHd]

<< John Fogerty & Mark Farner are two who spring to mind who lost damn near
every thing they had
to the business. >>

Explain who you see what happened.



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

[agent86]

> << That's the Harry Nilsson cartoon with the kid Oblio & his dog Arrow,
> right?
>>>
>
> I alwasy thought that was called "The Point".
>

Yeah, that's what I thought too. Hence the question.

[hank alrich]

EggHd wrote:

> << That's the Harry Nilsson cartoon with the kid Oblio & his dog Arrow, right?

> I alwasy thought that was called "The Point".

And here I thought that was Sid Page's mid-'70's band.

--
ha

[EggHd]

<< Explain who you see what happened.

Huh?? >>

Like that wasn't clear? (LOL)

How did they both lose everything from your perspective?



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

[EggHd]

<< And here I thought that was Sid Page's mid-'70's band. >>

Going back a little further Strike It Rich is one of my all time fav records by
Dan Hicks and the Hot Licks.



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

[agent86]

EggHd wrote:

> << John Fogerty & Mark Farner are two who spring to mind who lost damn
> near every thing they had
> to the business. >>
>
> Explain who you see what happened.

Huh??

[Dan O'Dea]

> > That doesn't make sense. If you don't like an artist, why would you like their music?


The problem is that when someone says "I love Wagner", it doesn't mean
that they think Wagner was a great man with all of his Nazi party
associations. They are really saying "I love the way that Wagner
makes me feel about myself". That's the problem with music. The
artist could be a black-child-superstar turned white-woman-wannabe
pedofile (wonder if I'm talking about anyone in particular) which has
been rumored for years, and people will still buy their albums. I
don't respect MJ, but if some old jackson five stuff comes on at a
party after everyone's had a few, people are gonna get down.
Unfortunately it doesn't take respect for a person to have an
apprecation for their work.

I'm in no way advocating piracy. Just trying to shed some light on
the perspective of Joe Listener.

Dan O'Dea

[agent86]

EggHd wrote:

> << Explain who you see what happened.
>
> Huh?? >>
>
> Like that wasn't clear? (LOL)
>
> How did they both lose everything from your perspective?

I have no firsthand knowledge of either of their situations. If you do,
please enlighten the rest of us.

I would expect that like many musicians, they tended to concentrate mostly
on the music while relying on others with more business knowledge &
experience to give them good business advice and to deal fairly with them.
Whether due to ineptitude, or deceit, or just dumb luck, this apparently
turned out to be a bad assumption.

Whatever the specific reasons were, I'm pretty sure it wasn't lack of
talent that prevented these two gentlemen from making it in the business
longterm, which was what Mike's post seemed to imply (although I'm not sure
that's what he intended).

[EggHd]

<< I have no firsthand knowledge of either of their situations. If you do,
please enlighten the rest of us. >>

I don't. That's why I was asking you.

<< I would expect that like many musicians, they tended to concentrate mostly
on the music while relying on others with more business knowledge &
experience to give them good business advice and to deal fairly with them. >>

Fogetry was a hands on guy. He worte the songs, produced tham all the things
that didn't happen in those days.

I do know he got into a legal battle with the other band mates and he didn't
like Fantasy and didn't make a great deal to get out of the deal. I believe
they also had all or part of his publishing but he keeps the writers income
which should be substantial

In terms of Farner, I have no idea other than how long t bands stay popular?



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

[agent86]

EggHd wrote:

> Fogetry was a hands on guy. He worte the songs, produced tham all the
> things that didn't happen in those days.
>
> I do know he got into a legal battle with the other band mates and he
> didn't
> like Fantasy and didn't make a great deal to get out of the deal. I
> believe they also had all or part of his publishing but he keeps the
> writers income which should be substantial

Apparently, Fantasy got a pretty big chunk, because he refused to perform
any of the old CCR tunes for a long time. He said something to the effect
of 'I'm not going to help them screw me". (That's a paraphrase, not a
direct quote.)


> In terms of Farner, I have no idea other than how long t bands stay
> popular?

I saw him on TV a few years ago. He was talking about how much money GF
still owed their label (Capital, I think). At that point, Don & Mel had
signed away their interest to get out of debt. But at that time, Farner
said he would rather file for bankruptcy than give up his rights to his
music. I don't know how it all turned out. I wish him the best, Grand
Funk's music is a big part of my favorite memories of my misspent youth.

[EggHd]

<< I saw him on TV a few years ago. He was talking about how much money GF
still owed their label (Capital, I think). >>

I wonder what their salkes were after the renegotiated? wasn't there also a
real bad deal with the manager? he took them to the cleaners.

<< Don & Mel had
signed away their interest to get out of debt. >>

I wonder who they signed it over to. it's not unsual for older abnds like that
to get bought out by another member.



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

[EggHd]

<< I assumed to the label, but that may be wrong. >>

I don't know what they would own.

Who tours as Grand Funk? That would be the owner of the name.


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

[agent86]

EggHd wrote:

> << I saw him on TV a few years ago. He was talking about how much money
> GF still owed their label (Capital, I think). >>
>
> I wonder what their salkes were after the renegotiated? wasn't there also
> a
> real bad deal with the manager? he took them to the cleaners.
>
> << Don & Mel had
> signed away their interest to get out of debt. >>
>
> I wonder who they signed it over to. it's not unsual for older abnds like
> that to get bought out by another member.

I assumed to the label, but that may be wrong. Farner's tone didn't
indicate that he had gotten it. He really seemed in such desperate straits
that he probably couldn't have bought them out unless they sold really
cheap. It was really a sad interview to watch.

[agent86]

EggHd wrote:

> << I assumed to the label, but that may be wrong. >>
>
> I don't know what they would own.

publishing, possibly?


> Who tours as Grand Funk? That would be the owner of the name.

I just looked it up. It's Don & Mel & three other guys (who have
impressive credits, but I don't recognize their names, you might.)

http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/promomap.htm/

Then I looked to see if Mark had a site up. He's apparently finishing up
shome shows in Japan, & has some US shows booked between April & Sept.
Only six shows listed on his website, but it's good to see he's back in
action. I couldn't find any mention of the "Ordeal" on the site.

http://markfarner.com/

[hank alrich]

agent86 wrote:

> Whatever the specific reasons were, I'm pretty sure it wasn't lack of
> talent that prevented these two gentlemen from making it in the business
> longterm, which was what Mike's post seemed to imply (although I'm not sure
> that's what he intended).

There were severe contractural hassles in Fogerty's situation. These
resulted in a hiatus. When the BS had cleared he came back with a
cassette demo that got him a check for two million written right in the
big guy's office upon one listen to the demo. So longterm, he's a
survivor.

Certainly not every career failure is due to lack of talent. I know a
late friend who got signed twice - loaded with talent - startlingly so -
and invested his advances in the very wrongest drugs, and then killed
himself in Reno a few years ago.

The potential reasons for failure are plenty.

--
ha

[EggHd]

<< publishing, possibly? >>

hard to tell. Funny thing I can't imagine that Grand Funk could still be
unrecouped.

<< It's Don & Mel & three other guys (who have
impressive credits, but I don't recognize their names, you might.) >>

Interesting that mark Farner isn't invloved although they may be paying him to
use the name or they may have bought him out.

Other tha Bruce K I don't know who anyone is but doesn't mean they aren't all
great.




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

[agent86]

hank alrich wrote:

> Certainly not every career failure is due to lack of talent. I know a
> late friend who got signed twice - loaded with talent - startlingly so -
> and invested his advances in the very wrongest drugs, and then killed
> himself in Reno a few years ago.
>
> The potential reasons for failure are plenty.

Tragic.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I don't think I said that, and I didn't mean to imply it.

Well, I quoted it from SOMEBODY. <g>

> There are
> certainly some very talented people who have found it difficult to
> impossible to earn a living at music in the long term. John Fogerty & Mark
> Farner are two who spring to mind who lost damn near every thing they had
> to the business.

One of the problems with people who fall into the music business is
that they fall into the music, but not the business. They don't learn
about investments and saving money. Dolly Parton is a good example of
how someone with good sense and good advice can have financial
security even though she isn't on the top of the heap any longer.

> A 20 year old may be able to support himself playing bar gigs at
> night & teaching in the day time. But when he's 40, with a wife & kids
> (and maybe one of the kids has cronic health problems), the he NEEDs a job
> with health insurance, 401K, paid sick leave, etc.

If in the intervening 20 years he hasn't reached the level where he
has set up his own health insurance and retirement plans, then yes, he
needs a steady job where those things are provided. I expect that the
only place you get those kind of benefits in the music industry is in
management, or perhaps as a regular in a songwriting or publishing
shop. If you're going to be any kind of independent businessman, you
need to look after your money, and if you're not taking in enough, you
need to figure out how to take in more, even if it means getting a day
job.

> I agree it's a problem. But copyrights are actually a relatively recent
> concept, and not necessarily a requirement in any economic model.

This is why nobody who's serious about this is arguing about
copyright. The copyright is just something that protects the
intellectual property. The mechanical copyright protects the product.
What's really being violated is the mechanical copyright which
protects against duplication. The just plain old copyright assures
that if another singer records your song, you'll get a piece of the
action. This isn't the "download problem" issue as you know. It's the
duplication of the product that reduces sales that's the problem.

[a computer virus to 'punish' downloaders]
> Who would you suggest design it? Microsoft? What would the testing cycle
> look like to make ABSOLUTELY sure it only infected the targeted machines?

Making sure it only infects the target machines is easy. You download
the file, you're a target, your computer quits working and there's
nothing you can do but reformat or replace the hard drive. No more
virus, unless you're dumb enough to do it again. It wouldn't affect
other machines because there's no way to get it other than to download
a file that's infected with it. It doesn't have to be a
self-replicating virus. That's not the idea. I don't know who would
design it.

> Do you have all the music you want? I don't.

Actually, I think I do, and that may explain why we're getting nowhere
with this discussion. I don't feel a need to "have" music because it's
all around me. If the radio went away and there were no concerts, then
maybe I'd want to buy more CDs.

> I'm talking about the DIFFERENCE between the cost of producing CDs as
> opposed to LPs. (you snipped that part.)

Sorry, I misunderstood your point. A CD typically has twice as much
music on it as an LP, so why shouldn't it cost twice as much? Now I'll
argue that it doesn't HAVE to have that much music on it, and the fact
that so many people download only a couple of songs from a CD
demonstrates that there are many who would be happy with shorter CDs.
However, put twice as many songs on the disk and you get twice as much
in royalties per sale. I suppose that if there was clear evidence that
twice as many CDs would be sold if they had half as many songs on
them, the industry would make shorter CDs.

But then who'd write all those good songs, or more important, would
anyone buy the CDs that had all the bad songs on them? If there are
two good songs on a CD that has 16 songs on it, would we be better off
if this was split into two 8-song CDs each of which had one good song
on it? And if you put the two good songs on the same CD, then who
would buy the one with the 8 bad songs on it? I know, people who liked
THOSE songs. There might be a few, but the record companies pretty
much know what the throwaways are.

> I'm not arguing the cost of
> producing the music, but THAT shouldn't be any higher for CDs than for LPs
> for a couple of reasons. First, in the case of older records which were
> already released on vinyl, much of those costs were already covered from LP
> sales.

Those are often lower-priced, or they contain material that was never
released on vinyl. Also, while early CD re-releases were pretty much
slapped together, today there's quite a bit of engineering time that
goes into taking an old tape master (some of the effort is in FINDING
that tape and identifying what they have) and generating a clean CD
master from it.

> Second, for newer releases, technologies such as MIDI & ProTools
> have led to much of the production work being done in smaller, less
> expensive studios, or even off site in home project studios.

Fair enough, but you don't often find this with major label releases.
The work may be done in the producer's or artist's studio, but many of
those are as well or better equipped than commercial studios, and the
money to set up those studios has to come from somewhere - like the
sale of CDs. On the other hand, it's not uncommon for a self-recorded
CD sold off the stage at a gig to be priced at $15. Ask those guys why
they don't sell them for $10.

> Another big difference is that there is a real, tangible value in geting
> from Point A to Point B faster than you could drive there. While music has
> been an important part of human culture ever since our earliest ancestors
> began beating sticks together, there is no real intrinsic value to recorded
> music.

Ahem!



--
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]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are kidding right? They just went through the screenrs issues re
Oscars
> and one person was arrested for uploading screeners.
>
That's one. What I mean is, you're not hearing it at the same *volume*
that you hear the RIAA complaining about it. Lawsuits, tv commercials, ad
campaigns, getting artists to make PSAs, etc. It'll come as soon as DVD
sales drop off and they need someone to blame.

ryanm

[EggHd]

<< They don't learn
about investments and saving money. Dolly Parton is a good example of
how someone with good sense and good advice can have financial
security even though she isn't on the top of the heap any longer. >>

I can't even imagine the money that "I Will Always Love You" has brought in.

<< I expect that the
only place you get those kind of benefits in the music industry is in
management, or perhaps as a regular in a songwriting or publishing
shop. >>

Writers signed to publishing deal or most samll management companoies don't
provide retirement plans. Songwriters are not part of a company's health plan.

Most people in the biz that I know have set up their own accounts.

<< A CD typically has twice as much
music on it as an LP, so why shouldn't it cost twice as much? >>

The disc itself is only part of the cost. The booklet is a cost as well. CD,
Booklet, shrink wrap, top spine can cost from 50 cents to 80 cents depending.

How much is an LP?




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

[EggHd]

<< Lawsuits, tv commercials, ad
campaigns, getting artists to make PSAs, etc. It'll come as soon as DVD
sales drop off and they need someone to blame. >>

You haven't seen the PSAs in the theaters?




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

[ryanm]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
>
> Interesting that mark Farner isn't invloved although they may be paying
him to
> use the name or they may have bought him out.
>
I saw them a few years ago, and Farner was singing and playing guitar.
Don't know what may have happened since then, but it looked like business as
usual when I saw them.

ryanm

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> If the radio went away and there were no concerts, then
> maybe I'd want to buy more CDs.

Or new banjo and guitar strings.

--
ha

[ryanm]

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
>
> You haven't seen the PSAs in the theaters?
>
haven't been to the theatre in a while. I have a 62" tv and surround
sound at home, I usually wait for them to come out on DVD.

ryanm

[agent86]

>> I don't think I said that, and I didn't mean to imply it.
>
> Well, I quoted it from SOMEBODY. <g>

One of the problems when subthreads get so big is that a quote often gets
clipped to the point that the context is lost just to make it easier to
read. Then someone else someone else responds to only a small part of the
original idea..

You quoted it from me, but the context was referring to people who were
currently (or previously) in the music buz, but no longer able to make a
living at it.


> One of the problems with people who fall into the music business is
> that they fall into the music, but not the business. They don't learn
> about investments and saving money. Dolly Parton is a good example of
> how someone with good sense and good advice can have financial
> security even though she isn't on the top of the heap any longer.

A couple more are Arthur Smith & Les Paul (& Gene Autry if he's still
alive). Never mind security, they're on the top of the heap financially
even though they aren't musically any longer.


>> A 20 year old may be able to support himself playing bar gigs at
>> night & teaching in the day time. But when he's 40, with a wife & kids
>> (and maybe one of the kids has cronic health problems), the he NEEDs a
>> job with health insurance, 401K, paid sick leave, etc.
>
> If in the intervening 20 years he hasn't reached the level where he
> has set up his own health insurance and retirement plans, then yes, he
> needs a steady job where those things are provided. I expect that the
> only place you get those kind of benefits in the music industry is in
> management, or perhaps as a regular in a songwriting or publishing
> shop. If you're going to be any kind of independent businessman, you
> need to look after your money, and if you're not taking in enough, you
> need to figure out how to take in more, even if it means getting a day
> job.

Right, but also in the LAST 20 years, it's gotten harder & harder to make
decent money from bar gigs (due to a number of things from DWI laws to
competition with DJs). so a day job is just about essential. But if you
have a day job, you're not REALLY making a living from music unless the day
job is music related. When I was 20, music stores were the ideal day job
for band types, but now most local music stores are going out of business
because they can't compete with Musicians Fiend (NOT a typo). Even then,
music store salesmen don't usually get benefit packages. Especially if
they have to be out of town a lot with their band. Setting up your own
health care & retirement is fine, but if you have a child or a spouse with
a cronic illness like diabetes or MS, you can't buy hhealth insurance for
them AT ANY PRICE. Your ONLY choice is to get group insurance through your
employer because IF your in the GROUP, they CAN"T deny you coverage.
(That's how it works in North Carolina. Insurance laws will vary from
state to state.)


>> I agree it's a problem. But copyrights are actually a relatively recent
>> concept, and not necessarily a requirement in any economic model.
>
> This is why nobody who's serious about this is arguing about
> copyright. The copyright is just something that protects the
> intellectual property. The mechanical copyright protects the product.
> What's really being violated is the mechanical copyright which
> protects against duplication. The just plain old copyright assures
> that if another singer records your song, you'll get a piece of the
> action. This isn't the "download problem" issue as you know. It's the
> duplication of the product that reduces sales that's the problem.

Are you sure about that? I thought the mechanical license wha what you
need to get from Harry Fox Agency in order to record another songwriter's
song. I thought the actual recording was protected by a patent. Which
means I still used the wrong word, but hopefully my generic use of
"copyright" still gets the point across. If not, sorry for the confusion.


> [a computer virus to 'punish' downloaders]
>> Who would you suggest design it? Microsoft? What would the testing
>> cycle look like to make ABSOLUTELY sure it only infected the targeted
>> machines?
>
> Making sure it only infects the target machines is easy. You download
> the file, you're a target, your computer quits working and there's
> nothing you can do but reformat or replace the hard drive. No more
> virus, unless you're dumb enough to do it again. It wouldn't affect
> other machines because there's no way to get it other than to download
> a file that's infected with it. It doesn't have to be a
> self-replicating virus. That's not the idea. I don't know who would
> design it.

Well my day job is as a software engineer/consultant. I've designed &
written a lot of software for fortune 500 companies, & I personally
wouldn't want the responsibility of creating such a monster. I'm guessing
at your line of reasoning here, but just a few things to consider ... 1.)
it IS possible to extract data from a crashed hard drive. 2.) Once you
crash a couple of computers, Norton & McAfee will issue updates to detect
your virus upon downloading. & 3.) Once it's detectable, it only takes one
bright college CS major to mutate it into something you never dreamed of,
but you'd still be the firt one who released it into the wild & and the one
the government would probably blame. Trust me, you REALLY don't want to go
there.


>> Do you have all the music you want? I don't.
>
> Actually, I think I do, and that may explain why we're getting nowhere
> with this discussion.

Damn, and I thought we were doing so well! C'mon, we're really not that
far apart.

I don't feel a need to "have" music because it's
> all around me. If the radio went away and there were no concerts, then
> maybe I'd want to buy more CDs.

I dont feel a "Need" for it either, but where I live, the radio sucks.
Most stations are now owned by ClearChannel. Most of those that are still
locally owned buy their playlists from nationally syndicated services.
There is one truly independent bluegrass station about a hundred miles
away. If the weather's right I can pick them up in some parts of town in
my car, but not at home. If I listen to radio at all, I listen to NPR,
mostly for news & the local programming from the college station that
carries NPR for the occaisional jazz or bluegrass program. Thank God for
digital cable & the Bluegrass, Classic Rock, & Americana channels.

I am pleased that there seems to be somewhat of a resurgence of live grass
roots (the concept, not the band) live music in clubs & coffee houses in
this area. & when I find a band I like playing locally, I'll usually buy
one of their CDs at the show. I figure it's taken fifteen years for clubs
to start hiring live bands again. If we want it to keep happening, we have
to support it.


>> I'm talking about the DIFFERENCE between the cost of producing CDs as
>> opposed to LPs. (you snipped that part.)
>
> Sorry, I misunderstood your point. A CD typically has twice as much
> music on it as an LP, so why shouldn't it cost twice as much? Now I'll
> argue that it doesn't HAVE to have that much music on it, and the fact
> that so many people download only a couple of songs from a CD
> demonstrates that there are many who would be happy with shorter CDs.

Well, you & I traded posts in a couple of months ago in which I stated my
opinion that very few artists are capable of putting together 20 minutes of
really stellar material, much less 76. Anybody old enough to have owned
LPs knows that most of their albums had one side that got played to death,
& the other side seldom got played at all. And this was bands of the
caliber of Led Zeppelin & Pink Floyd. How can anybody justify 76 minutes
of Britney or Christina (or even Lisa Loeb or Train, who I happen to like a
lot)

> However, put twice as many songs on the disk and you get twice as much
> in royalties per sale. I suppose that if there was clear evidence that
> twice as many CDs would be sold if they had half as many songs on
> them, the industry would make shorter CDs.
>
> But then who'd write all those good songs, or more important, would
> anyone buy the CDs that had all the bad songs on them? If there are
> two good songs on a CD that has 16 songs on it, would we be better off
> if this was split into two 8-song CDs each of which had one good song
> on it? And if you put the two good songs on the same CD, then who
> would buy the one with the 8 bad songs on it? I know, people who liked
> THOSE songs. There might be a few, but the record companies pretty
> much know what the throwaways are.

Well, you mentioned earlier that some people just don't have the tallent to
be in the music business. I'd use that same logic to argue that some songs
just don't deserve to be on nationally released CDs. But since the majors
typically get new artists to sign over half of the publishing rights,
packing a sellable CD with a bunch of crappy songs is just another easy way
to make more profit. It hurts the customer because they have to pay for 20
songs to get one good one. And it hurts the artist, because it makes it
look like they can't wright a decent song even if they really can.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> A couple more are Arthur Smith & Les Paul (& Gene Autry if he's still
> alive). Never mind security, they're on the top of the heap financially
> even though they aren't musically any longer.

I don't think Gene Autry is alive, and not sure about Arthur Smith,
but Les Paul certainly is. I heard him play last Summer and while he's
not as fast and tricky as he was in his prime, he still contributes to
the band in a way that nobody else (other than a very good Les Paul
clone) can. And he's so full of fun, energy, and bull**** that he's a
real treasure. He's rich in more ways than financially.

> Right, but also in the LAST 20 years, it's gotten harder & harder to make
> decent money from bar gigs (due to a number of things from DWI laws to
> competition with DJs).

That's true, but playing bars has always been a gig for the young and
a few seasoned vetrans.

> But if you
> have a day job, you're not REALLY making a living from music unless the day
> job is music related.

How important is that, though? YOu're making a living and supporting
the family, and you're playing music. If your music gigs can support
your gear lust, that's about enough that anyone with a good job and
the time to do weekend gigs can hope for. If you make a hit, that's a
bonus - but the wise weekend warrior doesn't give up his day job based
on just a little success in music.

> When I was 20, music stores were the ideal day job
> for band types

Maybe it seemed so, but how about working in a recording studio, or
recording jingles for local radio or TV stations, producing other
bands, or working out educational music programs and playng for
schools? We say "flip hamburgers" flippantly, but there are
music-related jobs that aren't playing in bar bands. Not many,
certainly not as many as there are would-be rock stars, but I know
many people who have been successful in music for their whole
careers. (I know some Grammy winers, but no rock stars) The one thing
that all of them have in common is the understanding that they have to
take care of business first.

> Are you sure about that? I thought the mechanical license wha what you
> need to get from Harry Fox Agency in order to record another songwriter's
> song. I thought the actual recording was protected by a patent.

No patents involved. I think I have the correct term, but I could be
wrong about that. The song (the words, the melody, the arrangement) is
protected by copyright - the circle-C. The product, the disk, CD,
cassette, is protected by the mechanical copyright, the circle-P.
That's what keeps you from copying a CD.

> Well my day job is as a software engineer/consultant. I've designed &
> written a lot of software for fortune 500 companies, & I personally
> wouldn't want the responsibility of creating such a monster.

I'm an engineer, and when I got out of college (Vietnam war era) I
didn't want to take a job in a defense contractor plant and make war
machines either. But somebody would do it.

> it IS possible to extract data from a crashed hard drive.

Sure, but Little Joanie whose computer stops working isn't going to go
through all that trouble.

> 2.) Once you
> crash a couple of computers, Norton & McAfee will issue updates to detect
> your virus upon downloading.

So you write a better one. Or you make a deal with Norton and McAfee
not to protect against this one because it's for a good purpose, not a
malicious one (there may be some disagreement about this). The risk,
of course, is that the code will be "borrowed" by someone who wants to
plant a malicious virus. However, if it strikes hard and fast,
hopefully it will serve its puprpose and won't have to be perpetuated.
It's like the "Drive drunk and you WILL lose your license" laws.
Download a protected song and your computer will crash badly.

> I dont feel a "Need" for it either, but where I live, the radio sucks.

Me, too, except for a few stations for certain hours, but that's why I
put up with the awful sound of Internet streaming radio through a
dial-up connection. I don't get heavily into the music, so the
occasional hiccups don't make me go crazy - though I have been giving
serious consideration to DSL, and better quality on-line audio would
be one of the benefits. On the other hand, I don't listen to the kind
of music that's most downloaded. There's a classical music station
that broadcasts music from 9 AM to 3 PM (mostly talk at other hours)
and that can keep me music-satisfied most of the day when I'm sitting
here working. At 3 PM, I log on to kbcs.fm and listen to "Lunch With
Folks and the (recently renamed and shortened by an hour-grrrrrr!)
world music show that follows it which takes me up until it's time to
make dinner. Chances are you could find something you could enjoy,
too.

> Thank God for
> digital cable & the Bluegrass, Classic Rock, & Americana channels.

How do those work out? I had a rental car recently that had a
satellite radio in it. I listened to the jazz programs for a couple of
hours and got bored - went back to the NPR FM station.

> Well, you & I traded posts in a couple of months ago in which I stated my
> opinion that very few artists are capable of putting together 20 minutes of
> really stellar material, much less 76. Anybody old enough to have owned
> LPs knows that most of their albums had one side that got played to death,
> & the other side seldom got played at all.

I guess I bought different LPs than you did. There were, however, a
couple of formulas that were used for assembling an LP that don't work
with CDs. There were a couple of places to put the really strong song,
and hopefully you had one really strong song for each side. The first
and last bands had a formula (because they were easiest to cue for
broadcast) and you could pace the side by putting in weaker or lower
energy material between the first and last cuts. On a CD, while you
have random access to each song, you have to push buttons to do it,
and there's no compelling reason to put a strong song at the end like
there was on an LP, so there may be no compelling reason to even have
a second really strong song on the CD at all. The label might want to
save it for the next single if the CD does well, or save it for the
next CD.

> How can anybody justify 76 minutes
> of Britney or Christina

Damn if I know.

> Well, you mentioned earlier that some people just don't have the tallent to
> be in the music business. I'd use that same logic to argue that some songs
> just don't deserve to be on nationally released CDs. But since the majors
> typically get new artists to sign over half of the publishing rights,
> packing a sellable CD with a bunch of crappy songs is just another easy way
> to make more profit.

I think that's basically it. Clearly they can't believe that every
song is as good as the hit.

> It hurts the customer because they have to pay for 20
> songs to get one good one.

Another way of looking at it is that you pay 20 times the cost of a
song, and you get 19 for free. I suspect that when you put all of the
costs together, whatever amount the royalties bring in is really
necessary to pay everyone involved. Very few songwriters can make a
living on the royalties from one or two songs a year - maybe once or
twice, but not year after 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

[agent86]

>> But if you
>> have a day job, you're not REALLY making a living from music unless the
>> day job is music related.
>
> How important is that, though? YOu're making a living and supporting
> the family, and you're playing music. If your music gigs can support
> your gear lust, that's about enough that anyone with a good job and
> the time to do weekend gigs can hope for. If you make a hit, that's a
> bonus - but the wise weekend warrior doesn't give up his day job based
> on just a little success in music.

I'm sure it's more important to some people than others. To me, it stopped
being important way back when the day gig started bringing in twice the
money as the music, and it's gotten even less important as that gap has
widened even further. While making a hit MIGHT be financially gratifying,
it's not really one of my goals. A lot of musicians way more talented than
me never had a hit, & a lot of the biggest hits are completely devoid of
any redeeming social value. My own barometer for determining the cultural
validity of my own music is "How well does it appeal to people both younger
and older than me?" If, in my mid 40s, I can maintain an audience that
includes both college students & retirees who like me enough to bring their
friends to my next show, then I'm doing pretty well. But I DON'T call
myself a professional musician, because only a small percentage of my
livelyhood actually comes from music, even though a severely
disproportionate amount of my time & attention is consumed by it.


>> Are you sure about that? I thought the mechanical license wha what you
>> need to get from Harry Fox Agency in order to record another songwriter's
>> song. I thought the actual recording was protected by a patent.
>
> No patents involved. I think I have the correct term, but I could be
> wrong about that. The song (the words, the melody, the arrangement) is
> protected by copyright - the circle-C. The product, the disk, CD,
> cassette, is protected by the mechanical copyright, the circle-P.
> That's what keeps you from copying a CD.

You're probably more qualified to address that than I am. Whatever it's
called, I think we're both talking about the same general concept. That
is: a legal device which establishes the creator's ownership of a work. I
was thinking in terms of a mechanical license (administered by HFA) as
opposed to a performance license (administered by ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.)


>> Well my day job is as a software engineer/consultant. I've designed &
>> written a lot of software for fortune 500 companies, & I personally
>> wouldn't want the responsibility of creating such a monster.
>
> I'm an engineer, and when I got out of college (Vietnam war era) I
> didn't want to take a job in a defense contractor plant and make war
> machines either. But somebody would do it.

I wasn't talking about moral issues, but legal ones. As a consultant, I
have to hold myself to a certain level of professional ethics. If I
accepted a contract to do something I knew was illegal (like writing and
releasing a virus), and it was ever found out, it would be very detrimental
to my professional credibility & my ability to attract new clients. (not
to mention the possibility of prison time.)


>> Once you
>> crash a couple of computers, Norton & McAfee will issue updates to
>> detect your virus upon downloading.
>
> So you write a better one. Or you make a deal with Norton and McAfee
> not to protect against this one because it's for a good purpose, not a
> malicious one (there may be some disagreement about this).

I doubt they would go for such a deal for the same reasons listed above.
Good purpose or malicious, it's still illegal.


>> Thank God for
>> digital cable & the Bluegrass, Classic Rock, & Americana channels.
>
> How do those work out? I had a rental car recently that had a
> satellite radio in it. I listened to the jazz programs for a couple of
> hours and got bored - went back to the NPR FM station.

Don't know about satelite radio, but with digital cable, your converter
box/tuner has analog & digital outs for audio and standard RCA, S-video &
RGB video outs. So you just plug it right into your stereo receiver.

The music channels run continuous music. No DJs, no commercials, just one
song after another. They run 24 hours a day, although there's not 24 hours
of music in the rotation, so there is some repitition, but there are enough
distinct channels (broken down by genre) that repitition isn't a problem
(unless you only like one kind of music. I've never bothered to actually
time the cycle or count the number of songs in the playlist. If you have
the TV on, you see the song title, artist, album, & some trivia about the
artist.


>> Well, you mentioned earlier that some people just don't have the tallent
>> to
>> be in the music business. I'd use that same logic to argue that some
>> songs
>> just don't deserve to be on nationally released CDs. But since the
>> majors typically get new artists to sign over half of the publishing
>> rights, packing a sellable CD with a bunch of crappy songs is just
>> another easy way to make more profit.
>
> I think that's basically it. Clearly they can't believe that every
> song is as good as the hit.
>
>> It hurts the customer because they have to pay for 20
>> songs to get one good one.
>
> Another way of looking at it is that you pay 20 times the cost of a
> song, and you get 19 for free.

Kind of like when you buy apples by the pound. You have to pay for the
weight of the core too. Difference is you can mix apple cores with horse
**** & make compost for your garden.


> Very few songwriters can make a
> living on the royalties from one or two songs a year - maybe once or
> twice, but not year after year.

Hmmm, that sounds familiar. Maybe they need a day job ;-)

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I wasn't talking about moral issues, but legal ones. As a consultant, I
> have to hold myself to a certain level of professional ethics. If I
> accepted a contract to do something I knew was illegal (like writing and
> releasing a virus)

Is it really illegal to write and/or release a virus, or do "they"
have some other law that they can apply when and if they catch a virus
writer? The Record Industry has enough clout with Congress that they
could probably get a special law passed that allowed polluting
downloaded music with a computer-crippling program if they really
wanted to do that. But "they" have taken plenty of flak already about
that buggered track scheme that prevents a protected music CD from
playing automatically in a computer (and also jams up some car CD
players). Since appealing to the public's sense of right and wrong
doesn't seem to be working, I just thought that a really strong
militant solution might. Or simply throw 'em in jail for a month.

> Kind of like when you buy apples by the pound. You have to pay for the
> weight of the core too. Difference is you can mix apple cores with horse
> **** & make compost for your garden.

Unfortunately, even when you mix a CD with horse****, it doesn't decay
in any practical length of time, and when it does, probably doesn't
convert to anything that helps the garden more than the horse****.


--
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

[Jay Kadis]

In article <znr1077297984k@trad>, (Mike Rivers) wrote:

[snip]

>
> Unfortunately, even when you mix a CD with horse****, it doesn't decay
> in any practical length of time, and when it does, probably doesn't
> convert to anything that helps the garden more than the horse****.
>
>
> --

Hey, you've hit on a potential solution to the atmospheric carbon accumulation
problem! Make more polycarbonate CDs! Lots of them.

"I'm doing my part to change the earth: ask me how."

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[agent86]

> Is it really illegal to write and/or release a virus, or do "they"
> have some other law that they can apply when and if they catch a virus
> writer?

It's covered in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Look specificaly at
Section 1030(a)(5)(A).

http://www.panix.com/~eck/computer-fraud-act.html


> The Record Industry has enough clout with Congress that they
> could probably get a special law passed that allowed polluting
> downloaded music with a computer-crippling program if they really
> wanted to do that.

You're probably right about that. Under the current administration it's
certainly not been a problem for the energy industry to special laws passed
to allow polluting the air & water. I guess money talks & BS wallks.


>> Kind of like when you buy apples by the pound. You have to pay for the
>> weight of the core too. Difference is you can mix apple cores with horse
>> **** & make compost for your garden.
>
> Unfortunately, even when you mix a CD with horse****, it doesn't decay
> in any practical length of time, and when it does, probably doesn't
> convert to anything that helps the garden more than the horse****.

No, but you CAN hang 'em in your fruit trees to scare the birds away.

[Ratt Mahem]

Don Henley Must Die

--- Mojo Nixon


>

[hank alrich]

ragent86 wrote:

> Kind of like when you buy apples by the pound. You have to pay for the
> weight of the core too. Difference is you can mix apple cores with horse
> **** & make compost for your garden.

And the easiest way to manage that mix is to feed the cores to your
horse.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> Unfortunately, even when you mix a CD with horse****, it doesn't decay
> in any practical length of time, and when it does, probably doesn't
> convert to anything that helps the garden more than the horse****.

More useful hung around stuff you're trying to get to harvest that the
birds also like to eat; when they spin in the wind the flashing of the
reflected sunlight freaks out the birds, so you get to eat, too.

--
ha

[agent86]

hank alrich wrote:

> ragent86 wrote:
>
>> Kind of like when you buy apples by the pound. You have to pay for the
>> weight of the core too. Difference is you can mix apple cores with horse
>> **** & make compost for your garden.
>
> And the easiest way to manage that mix is to feed the cores to your
> horse.
>


"If you've got the notion, and if he's got the class..." --Jay Ungar

[Roger W. Norman]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
> Right. It's easy because it's true. The respect argument is based on
> people "doing the right thing". Some do, many do not, this is not
> something that can be counted on.

It's damned sure something that can be taught, though.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

...
>
>
> Artie Turner wrote:
>
>
> > "It's easy to just claim you steal because...you can."
>
>

[Roger W. Norman]

"Artie Turner" > wrote in message
...
> Rob, I expected more from you. What stops you from stealing if not some
> form of respect?
The concept of right and wrong, Artie. I was raised to believe that if
something was for sale and you couldn't afford it, you couldn't have it.
I'll admit to taping albums many years ago that friends loaned to me, but I
still won't allow my kids to use any computers here to download music or
movies.

> Henley's right to ask for respect. His fellow artists and the labels
> need to earn that respect.

And I think it is a matter of respect, but I don't believe respect is
actionable, so to speak. If someone has earned my respect or not, I
wouldn't steal from them. However, if they have earned my respect, I might
go out of my way to volunteer to help them move or something. But there's
such a misinterpretted meaning for respect these days that it's not
surprising that no one shows it. To young people today, respect is fear,
not admiration.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

[Artie Turner]

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> "Artie Turner" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Rob, I expected more from you. What stops you from stealing if not some
>>form of respect?
>
> The concept of right and wrong, Artie.

Roger, I've beaten this horse to death. If the "concept of right and
wrong" cannot be related to the concept of "respect" in some form or
other, there's no point in me continuing this conversation. In Henley's
article, he was asking for respect for artists from the labels, fairness
from the fans. The only point I was trying to make is that *if* Henley
and other artists feel that they are not getting respect and fair play
from the labels or the fans, maybe those artists haven't earned that
respect.

It seems as if most of the RAPers that cared to comment on this
"respect" issue, view respect solely in terms of theft or piracy. To me,
that is too narrow an interpretation.

I was raised to believe that if
> something was for sale and you couldn't afford it, you couldn't have it.
> I'll admit to taping albums many years ago that friends loaned to me, but I
> still won't allow my kids to use any computers here to download music or
> movies.

That's all well and good, Roger. Once again, I'm not defending theft.
I'm just looking at the social dynamic that's taking place and making an
observation about why theft of IP seems to be so rampant.
>
>
>>Henley's right to ask for respect. His fellow artists and the labels
>>need to earn that respect.
>
>
> And I think it is a matter of respect, but I don't believe respect is
> actionable, so to speak. If someone has earned my respect or not, I
> wouldn't steal from them. However, if they have earned my respect, I might
> go out of my way to volunteer to help them move or something. But there's
> such a misinterpretted meaning for respect these days that it's not
> surprising that no one shows it. To young people today, respect is fear,
> not admiration.

That *is* a misinterpretation, and if Henley had defined his "respect"
more clerly, maybe I never would have started this. Egghd and Hank
probably defined this respect issue in the terms that highlight the
respect problem as I see it. They both seemed to be saying that any and
all forms of artistic expression are legitimate and worthy of respect
and legal protection. In theory, I agree with them, but in practice,
some "art" (and I'll use the hard-core vulgar, misogynist rap as the
prime example) has the same overall effect on some of its fans and
consumers as pornography, and that effect undermines the sense of mutual
respect and fairness that Henley seems to be asking for.

From what I know of porn, the people that want it have no use for
ethical arguments. They would never dream of splitting semantic hairs
over the definition of respect or fairness. They might "respect" the
physiques and sexual prowess of the "artists" in the porn movies or
pictures, but they have no problems copying and pirating the content.

Other forms of pop music, while not having the salacious effect of porn,
are so shallow and insubstantial that they just don't create any
lasting, mutual respect for the "artist" (or producer)that created it.
Those fans dump the artists like candy wrappers as soon as they are done
with it.

In short, some forms of artistic expression simply do not generate that
good ol' traditional sense of respect that Aretha sang about and that
Henley seems to be asking for. That's the kind of respect that has to be
earned in my opinion.

Artie
>

[Mike]

(EggHd) wrote in message >...
> << If artists and labels want to be treated in a fair and respectful
> manner, they're going to have to earn it. >>
>
> Are you saying that if the fan doesn't like what the artist stands for our
> their music it's OK to steal their music?
>
> That doesn't make sense. If you don't like an artist, why would you like their
> music?
>
> If you deem the record substandard you should be able to just take it?
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

I think that the sleazebag, crotch grabbing, vulgar, do anything for
publicity artist profile encourages fans to think anything goes, and
it is okay cuz that is how the artists themselves behave. Thus it must
be okay to steal music.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Roger, I've beaten this horse to death. If the "concept of right and
> wrong" cannot be related to the concept of "respect" in some form or
> other, there's no point in me continuing this conversation.

Certainly no point is continuing that branch. The two are totally
unrelated unless you see "right" as "respecting the law" and "wrong"
as "not respecting the law."

I can 'respspect' you for maintaining your opinion, but that doesn't
stop me from thinking that your logic is 'wrong.'


--
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

[Artie Turner]

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> I can 'respspect' you for maintaining your opinion, but that doesn't
> stop me from thinking that your logic is 'wrong.'

Mike, you started this thread. What do you think Don Henley meant when
he wrote that his "core message" was "the artist must be allowed to join
with the labels and must be treated in a fair and respectful manner." I
interpret that as Henley saying some artists are not getting respectful
treatment from either the labels, the fans, or both. Do you think Henley
really didn't mean literal respect? Do you think he was just mouthing
some high-minded platitudes?

AT
>
>
> --
> 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

[EggHd]

<< What do you think Don Henley meant when
he wrote that his "core message" was "the artist must be allowed to join
with the labels and must be treated in a fair and respectful manner." >>

I could mean may things. Hard to say if you're not Henley. is he saying that
the artist needs to join with the labels to stop piracy? is he saying the
label needs to respect the artist? That's interesting as his manager is onw of
the toughest out there. Get a hit, the label wants another record and
renegotiate a much better deal. hard to say what he means.

<< I interpret that as Henley saying some artists are not getting respectful
treatment from either the labels, the fans, or both. >>

he could be. I believe The eagles get a lot of repsct and money.



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

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Mike, you started this thread. What do you think Don Henley meant when
> he wrote that his "core message" was "the artist must be allowed to join
> with the labels and must be treated in a fair and respectful manner."

I think that he means that he should be treated as an important member
of the money-making team by the label management, that he gets a say
in what music he records, how it's marketed, and what kind of payment
he can expect. I don't think he was talking about being respected by
the fans. That's for him to sell.

> I interpret that as Henley saying some artists are not getting respectful
> treatment from either the labels, the fans, or both. Do you think Henley
> really didn't mean literal respect? Do you think he was just mouthing
> some high-minded platitudes?

I think he was using the word in a kind of a high-minded manner. Of
course he's respected by his label - he makes money for them. I don't
see that any artist other than goofballs (and we all have our opinions
as to who those are) aren't respected in the traditional sense by
their fans.

Personally, I don't think I'd ever choose to use the term "respect"
even when talking about artists that I like, because I don't see
having that sort of relationship. There are several that I admire
because of their skills as performers, instrumentalists, singers,
writers, and being just plain good guys and gals, but that's different
from respect.


--
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

[Roger W. Norman]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1077407817k@trad...
>
> Personally, I don't think I'd ever choose to use the term "respect"
> even when talking about artists that I like, because I don't see
> having that sort of relationship. There are several that I admire
> because of their skills as performers, instrumentalists, singers,
> writers, and being just plain good guys and gals, but that's different
> from respect.

And that was my point. People I respect, I do so mostly because I have some
type of rapport with them. I admire Wesley Clark, but I don't know him to
give him my respect. If respect is earned I simply don't know him well
enough for him to have earned my respect. I trust where he came from and
his accomplishments, I admire his thoughts on what America needs, but I
wouldn't give him my respect until he'd shown his colors in his duties as an
elected official.

Now perhaps Henley is talking about all artists not being respected by the
majors, but that wouldn't be true. Perhaps he's talking about some artists
not being respected by the majors, but unless he's involved directly with
their careers, their decisions, has to live with their attitudes and
whatever else, I don't believe he can say that either. If he wants the
majors not to be the majors, and play paddycake with him and his other
artists, then he's not recognizing the fact that these are publically owned
companies that need to pay attention to the stockholder's interests more
than they need to worry about guys who have already signed contracts and
should know what to expect.

Personally, I just don't see what the guy has to gripe about. It's not
about respect, it's about the haves and havenots, the rich and the poor.
This is the schism created by big corporations, and it's alienated their own
customers. Little for Henley to put himself with the majors and complain
about the customers who's hard earned dollars have found other pockets to
line. If that's what he's doing.

So out of the possible scenarios, I don't know what he's saying but I also
don't see how respect comes into play.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio