The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Billy Corgan - No Money In Music Now
Old 18th July 2012
  #1771
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
do unto thee but not unto me...
ahahaha

you should do that in the goog font
Old 18th July 2012
  #1772
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Re trite observations and repetitious arguments: just let me make one thing very clear, I am in no way defending modern tech-companies. If you want to make out that I am, knock yourself out.

Re modern pop-music: do you have any idea how much money the bands I just mentioned in my last post have made for themselves AND record labels? It's in the industry's interest to make music that good; it's actually more profitable!


Anyway, I do agree with the basic premises of most of what you're all saying, just not in terms of the majors from c. mid-90s-ish onwards…

All I'm worried about, is, NOW things are very different, AND it would be careless to sign up to legislation that might damage the world just to suit some anachronistic notions of "how things should be"…basically, an offense needs to be more creative; innovative even…of course time is running out, and the tech companies most certainly have the upper hand.
you need to understand the legislation first to make that determination. just because someone says that the sky is green and the grass is purple, doesn't mean you have to believe them.

always question anyone who creates a situation where you are asked to chose one set of rights (individual protections) over the other (freedom of speech)- this is simply a ploy to get you to give up rights, not defend the others.

it can't be said to many times the fallacy of that argument (in addition to being completely ingenious) is confusing the freedom of expression, with the illegal exploitation of that expression for profit.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1773
Lives for gear
The burning question is how many people use music as filler?

Probably a lot.

How many more are listening to music less and less?

I think it's increasing in numbers. The fact is, the 5 thousandth time you listen to that Radiohead album is 277 days of lost concentration. At 1/3 of those times listening to it with full on ears that's a lot for most people.

The younger people just play video games. The older people have jobs. There could be a ton of reading time fit into all of those hours you spend vibrating your ear drums. I think people accept music and like it, but there is more to life. Book sales are at 27.2 billion analog & digital, haven't taken the hits music has had, and they're even easier to pirate.

I quit listening to music for the most part about a year ago. I mostly listen to talk radio when I drive around. I still really like to play it and make strange noise, but I'm not as nearly as excited about bands and scenes as I used to be.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1774
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
yes current media is all On All the time. its difficult to find a space for music to take a purchase on the senses.

sensory world is shot to shreds. you need a private place to go for music now.
it's no surprise that listening to the spoken word in a private car becomes a viable substitute
for the role music used to play.

I think eno grasped that years ago. what you do about it now I'm not sure.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1775
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
...I am in no way defending modern tech-companies. If you want to make out that I am, knock yourself out.
i'd have to argue that you're the only one knocking yourself out to come across as a tech defender. you claim to understand the danger of the tech industry, but your stance on both copyright and record labels contradict this supposed understanding. (just trying to help you get it straight. ) there's nothing complex or nuanced about these subjects. you either get it or you don't.

whether you realize it or not, your naive crusade against evil "record labels" and uninformed commentary on copyright plays right into the tech industry's oft repeated mantras and dogma. you're regurgitating their bogus case for them... so make up your mind.

if you want to comment and be taken seriously on these topics, do some actual research beyond the first hits you get on google, for a start... your personal taste and ignorance of the laws you're trying to argue against only show you for what you really are at present: just another peanut-gallery expert among millions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Re modern pop-music: do you have any idea how much money the bands I just mentioned in my last post have made for themselves AND record labels? It's in the industry's interest to make music that good; it's actually more profitable!
the naiveté that was poking out of your cute little blouse a few posts back has graduated to a full on flash and jiggle!... not only are you DEAD WRONG about what has brought home the most bacon where music sales are concerned, for the last time: "good" is subjective, we're discussing FACTS here sparky, not your almighty personal taste. (that you continue to believe the rest of the human race should be obliged to share... or else suffer the consequences they so clearly deserve for not listening to "dark side of the moon" on repeat for the last 40 years!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
…of course time is running out, and the tech companies most certainly have the upper hand.
and there you go being confused again. do you support tech rape, or want to fight it? it's that simple.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1776
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sound_music View Post
you claim to understand the danger of the tech industry, but your stance on both copyright and record labels contradict this supposed understanding. there's nothing complex or nuanced about these subjects. you either get it or you don't.
Are you suggesting that there's nothing complex or nuanced about copyright in the digital age? It's possible that I'm misreading the context in which you offer the above quote, but -- and speaking as a proponent of the economic theory of copyright upon which modern law is based -- I wouldn't think it credible to argue that anything involving copyright (be it limits, durations, enforcement, or most any other facet of the law and its application) can be seen as simplistic. I don't intend to put words in your mouth, however, so I welcome any clarification to your remarks that you may offer.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1777
Lives for gear
 
Kaoz's Avatar
Jumping in late, haven't read the entire thread, but i'm happy to say Billy is right, copyright sucks, the industry deserves to die, etc.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1778
Quote:
Originally Posted by systematika View Post
The burning question is how many people use music as filler?

Probably a lot.

How many more are listening to music less and less?

I think it's increasing in numbers. The fact is, the 5 thousandth time you listen to that Radiohead album is 277 days of lost concentration. At 1/3 of those times listening to it with full on ears that's a lot for most people.

The younger people just play video games. The older people have jobs. There could be a ton of reading time fit into all of those hours you spend vibrating your ear drums. I think people accept music and like it, but there is more to life. Book sales are at 27.2 billion analog & digital, haven't taken the hits music has had, and they're even easier to pirate.

I quit listening to music for the most part about a year ago. I mostly listen to talk radio when I drive around. I still really like to play it and make strange noise, but I'm not as nearly as excited about bands and scenes as I used to be.
Most music is filler these days, filler to be used while engaged in other activities.

Long gone are those days of bringing home DSOTM, sinking into a bean bag chair, popping on the Koss headphones, lighting up the lava lamps, black lights and a joint and sinking into the music.

Try that with a kid these days and he will be squirming like a toad in no time.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1779
Lives for gear
 
Kaoz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Most music is filler these days, filler to be used while engaged in other activities.

Long gone are those days of bringing home DSOTM, sinking into a bean bag chair, popping on the Koss headphones, lighting up the lava lamps, black lights and a joint and sinking into the music.

Try that with a kid these days and he will be squirming like a toad in no time.
The joint might help.

I must admit, its rare that i sit down and listen to a whole album these days without any distractions other than when i've first bought an album.

I don't think that's an indictment on the music, it's more a commentary on the ridiculous time demands mainstream society places on everybody these days. I work in the music industry almost full time, and even i struggle for timr to just chill and listen to some tunes. I'd hate to think what it's like for someone with a job job.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Jumping in late, haven't read the entire thread, but i'm happy to say Billy is right, copyright sucks, the industry deserves to die, etc.
I don't think that's what he's saying.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1781
Lives for gear
 
Kaoz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
I don't think that's what he's saying.
I sort of think it is in a way.

The heart of the current (read - from the past 30 years) business model of thr industry has been copyright. It's the kept the business afloat when by sll rights it should of died.

But now, more people are challenging that idea, they have the means to actively challenge it, and they have the backing to do so, and this detracts markedly from the amount of profit that can be made by the big three.

The quicker this industry is torn away from the grasp of the major names, the better.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
I sort of think it is in a way.

The heart of the current (read - from the past 30 years) business model of thr industry has been copyright. It's the kept the business afloat when by sll rights it should of died.

But now, more people are challenging that idea, they have the means to actively challenge it, and they have the backing to do so, and this detracts markedly from the amount of profit that can be made by the big three.

The quicker this industry is torn away from the grasp of the major names, the better.
Problem is it will kill all the little guys (if it already hasn't) before the majors are "torn apart." As someone that was deeply invested in the indie movement (anti-major) movement of the 90s it is so sad to see what has happened to it.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1783
Lives for gear
 
Kaoz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowood101 View Post
Problem is it will kill all the little guys (if it already hasn't) before the majors are "torn apart." As someone that was deeply invested in the indie movement (anti-major) movement of the 90s it is so sad to see what has happened to it.
Tbh it's hard to tell what effect the decline has had down here in Sydney.

The local scene, which used to be full of top bands in the 90's, is pretty much full of the exact same bands. It's mainly attributed to the pokies, and taxes brought in by the state government, as well as new smoking laws, never really thought about label involvement.

I'd love to say the current state of affairs has had a positive influence on local music, and I honestly see no reason why it shouldn't of, but I find it really sad that I can't say it has.

When you think of how anti-establishment that scene was in the 90's, it sucks that it now seems that the scene may of been dependent on the very establishment that it railed against.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Tbh it's hard to tell what effect the decline has had down here in Sydney.

The local scene, which used to be full of top bands in the 90's, is pretty much full of the exact same bands. It's mainly attributed to the pokies, and taxes brought in by the state government, as well as new smoking laws, never really thought about label involvement.

I'd love to say the current state of affairs has had a positive influence on local music, and I honestly see no reason why it shouldn't of, but I find it really sad that I can't say it has.

When you think of how anti-establishment that scene was in the 90's, it sucks that it now seems that the scene may of been dependent on the very establishment that it railed against.
True hard to say for sure and also we are talking 2 very distant scenes (I'm in USA). Also I have no exact numbers on the subject just personal observations. I am from a well known indie scene town in the states and it is depressing the change that has happened, especially when I talk to younger musicians in the area now about their goals and hopes it is depressing to say the least.

Before the big drop the anti major movement was really gaining traction. You had completely independent artists (distribution and label) selling numbers that was unheard of before. With the profits from these sales artists were setting up their own labels and signing their buddies and really making waves.

The movement wasn't relying on establishment as you put it, it was relying on money. Money is not bad, but what you do with it can be good or bad and these artists were using it for good. You could have a legit hope that maybe you or one of your buddies bands would strike a nerve locally and then you could count on your buddies to turn around and sign you to a subsidiary label and take you out on the road. A bit of a pyramid scheme but it worked. Now there is no money coming in to any of the regional scenes so your hopes of breaking out now are not there.

Put it this way in the late 90s you had independent artists selling more then majors do now. These artists would reinvest in the scene, it has nothing to do with relying on establishment, both are hurting from what we can not talk about on GS. The only difference is the establishment had more resources to hold on. Hence them around and the independent scene here is dead.

It's really sad when I see kids today using ideas from the 90s scene and relating it to what has happened to music today. In my eyes it is them missing the point.

Ha sorry for the random ramblings, in the studio working right now. So it can be hard to organize my thoughts.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1785
Lives for gear
 
Kaoz's Avatar
^^ I've always preferred to think the movement was based on people, not on money, but now that I look back, you're right of course.

I honestly don't know what the difference is. I had a nostalgia night a while ago after a gig (not starting one now as it's almost 5 am), but the amount of top quality local acts was astounding. When compared to what's available now, it was like comparing Marvin Gaye to Justin Bieber.

Tbh, I'd hate to think that the movement against the big three has anything to do with decline, as I'd hate to see what bands in the past fought so hard to achieve be wasted.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1786
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by systematika View Post
The burning question is how many people use music as filler?

Probably a lot.

How many more are listening to music less and less?

I think it's increasing in numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
yes current media is all On All the time. its difficult to find a space for music to take a purchase on the senses.

sensory world is shot to shreds...
absolutely.

here’s a fact i always found interesting: music pre-dates the written word. it existed long before the first book was ever even conceived, and has played an important role in peoples lives in every known culture around the world since before written history of any kind ever existed. in other words, music has been in all of us since day one.

for most of human history, music was magic. it was rare, and experiencing it was universally considered to be among the most beautiful and meaningful of human experiences.

before books, along with poets and storytellers, the musician was the historian and teacher; the recorder of events, the collector and transmitter of ideas and philosophy, and the messenger that reaffirmed collective values and social tendencies. music and musicians still perform all of those functions today.

the problem is that no one's really listening anymore. music has never had less value or cultural importance than it has today.

sound recording is a fairly recent phenomenon compared to the lifespan of music itself. music has existed in one form or another for millennia, but systems capable of recording and playing back sound (as we know them today) have only existed for a little over a century. that’s just a tiny blip on the evolutionary scale of the art form—but it changed everything, for better or worse—both for musicians and for music itself.

with the advent of sound recording technology, and systems that were capable of the mechanical reproduction of recorded sound, for the first time in history, people were able to listen to music without having to be present during a live musical performance. technology "freed" music from the constraints of live performance, making it far more accessible, and for the first time allowed the listener to experience music outside of the human context of musicians performing it.

for better or worse, music became a mechanical experience for most people. (many would argue that at this point music itself started losing value and cultural significance. they're not wrong, but the art form still has a long way to fall in our collective appreciation from here!)

my own opinion: i think technology enhanced music in some ways (not all), up to a certain point: but it would seem the further technology advances, the less importance people lend to the experience. and it's obvious why...

much further along in the evolution of music, when i was growing up, we had to pay for music. (as generations before me did.) the fact that i had to save up for weeks to go down to the record shop and buy the latest release made me appreciate the experience even more than listening to the radio. (we value things that are hard to come by, and take for granted the things that are handed to us... that's an obvious truth about human nature that will never change.)

it's not a perfect comparison, but in a lot of ways, just as in the time when music could only be experienced in the context of a live performance for a ritual or social social event that was governed by the calendar, which was a practical obstacle between music and the listener, in a lesser but tangible way, having to pay for music had a similar effect on all the generations that followed. music retained most of its value, or importance, because it wasn't something you could have any time you wanted it, for free: there were requirements to obtain it.

fast forward to 2012, where everyone has a pocket full of music they didn't pay for on a zillion devices that spit out in tiny plastic sound, droning on and on in every imaginable space, place, and context, and the OP's question answers itself.

music as an art form is suffering because there's too way much of it, and it's way too easy to get.

Last edited by sound_music; 19th July 2012 at 08:22 PM.. Reason: long winding rant! sitting here printing stems all day...mind wandering, keyboard got the better of me. ;-)
Old 19th July 2012
  #1787
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
That no one wants to buy either. I disagree with your first line/premise.

Music has never been less important to a person's life than it is today. Just look around. Music defined your lifestyle, clothing and outlook 40 years ago.
The Beatles changed pop culture. That has not happened since.

As you mentioned, there are many more 'diversions' for folks these days. Some (mostly under 30) are addicted to smart phones. Who has time to listen to music when all your friends are yaking/texting?

I used to see people with earplugs listening to music. Now they are listening to their friends, playing games or surfing 'apps'.

When I was a kid I had a ball and a bat, a guitar and a record player, add the transistor radio. Music took up a lot of my spare time.

Look at today's kids, they are doing many more things and those things leave less time for music, unless it's included as background music while engaged in other activities. Sure, they have the music on, but are they really listening?
.

Well said.

.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
^^ I've always preferred to think the movement was based on people, not on money, but now that I look back, you're right of course.

I honestly don't know what the difference is. I had a nostalgia night a while ago after a gig (not starting one now as it's almost 5 am), but the amount of top quality local acts was astounding. When compared to what's available now, it was like comparing Marvin Gaye to Justin Bieber.

Tbh, I'd hate to think that the movement against the big three has anything to do with decline, as I'd hate to see what bands in the past fought so hard to achieve be wasted.
Don't know if it was based on money, but you do need resources to fuel a movement. But who knows, doubt any movement can be exactly about one thing.

I agree it is really sad to see so many people's hard work, to build music wasted. You can only hope to see it turn around I guess and personally don't see it being turned around until the rampant theft is dealt with. Then maybe we will be able to find a solution, but who knows, I don't have my crystal ball right now ha.

Like I said the saddest thing is that it seems a lot of the thought (anti-major label) has caught on 10 years late. But those ideas are aimed at the wrong people today. In my opinion those ideals should be aimed at everyone taking advantage of artists these days and not aimed at the majors. Basically there is worst evils these days.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1789
Lives for gear
 
Kaoz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowood101 View Post
Don't know if it was based on money, but you do need resources to fuel a movement. But who knows, doubt any movement can be exactly about one thing.

I agree it is really sad to see so many people's hard work, to build music wasted. You can only hope to see it turn around I guess and personally don't see it being turned around until the rampant theft is dealt with. Then maybe we will be able to find a solution, but who knows, I don't have my crystal ball right now ha.

Like I said the saddest thing is that it seems a lot of the thought (anti-major label) has caught on 10 years late. But those ideas are aimed at the wrong people today. In my opinion those ideals should be aimed at everyone taking advantage of artists these days and not aimed at the majors. Basically there is worst evils these days.
I honestly think there are worse things happening in the industry these days than piracy, and I don't think it's holding back indie bands at all. If anything, i think smart use of the net and all the positives and negatives that come along with it Helps to breed a smarter and more loyal fan base, but i know that i'm in the minority with that opinion.

I always find it funny when i think of the whole anti-establishment thing, because it always seems to of kicked in ten years too late no matter who you talk to and what generation they're talkimg about.

I think part of the problem now is that bands that are railing against the machine (Radiohead and NiN for example) aren't marketed towards a younger crowd, whereas previous "protest" music was specifically aimed at a younger crowd.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1790
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowood101 View Post
... the saddest thing is that it seems a lot of the thought (anti-major label) has caught on 10 years late. But those ideas are aimed at the wrong people today. In my opinion those ideals should be aimed at everyone taking advantage of artists these days and not aimed at the majors. Basically there is worst evils these days.
totally.

i think the majors have always been an easy target for the tech industry (and their legions of supporters) to point their finger at. the majors' shady history is legendary... pretty easy to hide behind.

i have no particular affinity or love for majors, but at least artists were paid, and had enforceable contracts with them etc. at this point, as you say, there are far worse evils to contend with.

another good point is how the hate for "major labels" somehow morphed into "labels" in the current tech zeitgeist. a whole generation's been duped into thinks every "label" is "evil". what about the thousands of great, ethical, profitable indie labels...? most kids are incapable of making the distinction (or could care less)...
Old 19th July 2012
  #1791
Gear Addict
 
eddie.machete's Avatar
 

Well Billy would say that wouldn't he, he can't write anymore and nobody wants to listen to him. Ego predicts he won't admit but point the finger. Pumpkins are still one of my favorite bands, but they went terribly wrong. Lost the hunger to big cheques. Happens all the time. Money is perceived as success instead of the craft. They get loads of money and reach some creative plato and rest on their laurels. Which means they done it for the money in the first place. Not a bad thing in itself. But don't cry when your business model starts failing. Hes running some wrestling company now oddly. Mr business man moved on to other ventures.

Sent from my Acer E320 using Gearslutz App
1
Share
Old 19th July 2012
  #1792
Quote:
Originally Posted by sound_music View Post
totally.

i think the majors have always been an easy target for the tech industry (and their legions of supporters) to point their finger at. the majors' shady history is legendary... pretty easy to hide behind.

i have no particular affinity or love for majors, but at least artists were paid, and had enforceable contracts with them etc. at this point, as you say, there are far worse evils to contend with.

another good point is how the hate for "major labels" somehow morphed into "labels" in the current tech zeitgeist. a whole generation's been duped into thinks every "label" is "evil". what about the thousands of great, ethical, profitable indie labels...? most kids are incapable of making the distinction (or could care less)...
Yep totally agree. One thought on the subject is pretty much any movement gets wrapped into and warped by pop culture, example being look at the hippy movement or even the early 80s punk movement.

At the same point it becomes frustrating discussing this topic when techies and young kids that use the calling cards of these movements and have very little knowledge of the scene that developed this thought process. Also in general regurgitating what tech companies have told them. Basically losing any real original meaning. Kind of like when Pepsi (or insert any large company) says "be unique drink Pepsi," "unique" has became a desired term, but with that does not have the original meaning any more and is just a marketing tool.

At the same point I guess it's up to the youth to make their own "scene." Which is pretty sad right now. So in a way the younger generation that has grown up with piracy and now are looking for their place in the industry, are kind of reaping what they sowed. Not that I am happy about this, but at same point some truth to it.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1793
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
I personally don't fully understand the potential implications of the legislation, that's the problem...and there's very good arguments on either side as to what SOPA or similar legislation can and will entail.

Have a look at some of Eben Moglen videos or writings, his arguments against SOPA etc. are very convincing...this is someone who hasn't any financially vested interests and is dealing with the situation from an academic perspective.
Hmm wasn't familiar with Mr. Moglen before so looked up his bio. He does seem to have vested interests in this and is far from just "academic." At least defiantly has an agenda and is applying that agenda.

Would say far from an un-bias opinion.

Basically by mentioning him you are making Racks point.
Old 19th July 2012
  #1794
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Pro bono. But I agree that he has an agenda, everyone has an agenda though...My point was his interests aren't financial...which generally gives a somewhat less biased perspective.

All academic work is biased and has an agenda...
To be honest who knows, I have not seen Mr. Moglen's tax forms nor do I know the gentleman, but his centers/foundations need to get money from somewhere.

Where you get your money from, can lead to bias also. Not just his academic agenda, which also has foundation in where his money came from before his academic career.

Not stating anything scandalous. Just stating far from un-bias. Also possibly his views on free software are being projected onto another industry that he has no experience in.
Old 20th July 2012
  #1795
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Exactly, Paul MCartney isn't one of the richest musicians to walk the planet, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd aren't the best selling bands ever. Go back to sleep dude! Check your facts out, LOL....

(FWIW, I think a lot of the other artists up there are excellent too, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Queen, The Stones, AC/DC etc. ...just those are my personal favorites of popular music.)
every one of these bands or artists were at the forefront of popular music in their time. if you think they weren't chasing sales and singles to get to where they ended up, you're even more naive than i thought. (just forget the blouse altogether man... we've already seem 'em!)

micheal jackson alone, the undisputed heavyweight king of radio pop, has outsold every single one.

(also, you conveniently left out lots of top selling artists that you don't happen to like: whitney houston, bee-gees, shania twain, mariah carey, celine dion, backstreet boys, madonna, spice girls... etc)

Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Good isn't subjective actually... McDonald's is popular...but if you think that is good food, you don't know what you're talking about; get it?
no, you're still not getting it. we're not talking about whether you personally think mcdonald's is good or not, we're talking about mcdonald's having the right to exist, not be exploited, and enjoy the same protections under the law, no matter what your personal opinion happens to be. you're still confusing your opinion with some sort of fact or basis for an arguement. they're not the same.
1
Share
Old 20th July 2012
  #1796
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowood101 View Post
...pretty much any movement gets wrapped into and warped by pop culture, example being look at the hippy movement or even the early 80s punk movement.
it's true that almost any movement that gathers enough steam inevitably gets watered down so that the lowest common denominator can either understand it, or at least feel they're participating. i suppose the difference between the suburban kids decking themselves out in bell-bottoms and growing their hair in the 60s and today's "free information" generation, is that the people behind the hippie movement weren't ripping off artists and raping the world to the tune of billions in profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowood101 View Post
...it becomes frustrating discussing this topic when techies and young kids that use the calling cards of these movements and have very little knowledge of the scene that developed this thought process. Also in general regurgitating what tech companies have told them. Basically losing any real original meaning.
don't i know it! (but you gotta start somewhere...)
Old 20th July 2012
  #1797
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sound_music View Post
every one of these bands or artists were at the forefront of popular music in their time. if you think they weren't chasing sales and singles to get to where they ended up, you're even more naive than i thought. (just forget the blouse altogether man... we've already seem 'em!)

micheal jackson alone, the undisputed heavyweight king of radio pop, has outsold every single one.

(also, you conveniently left out lots of top selling artists that you don't happen to like: whitney houston, bee-gees, shania twain, mariah carey, celine dion, backstreet boys, madonna, spice girls... etc)

no, you're still not getting it. we're not talking about whether you personally think mcdonald's is good or not, we're talking about mcdonald's having the right to exist, not be exploited, and enjoy the same protections under the law, no matter what your personal opinion happens to be. you're still confusing your opinion with some sort of fact or basis for an arguement. they're not the same.
No, they weren't! Remember in my "naiveté", I was "DEAD WRONG"?!?
I'm confused now? Do you retract?

Where (in my "naiveté") did I say I had a problem with artists making money out of sales?

Michael Jackson was a talented bastard, didn't I just mention him? I'm quite sure he hasn't outsold The Beatles in overall sales...in the US or internationally. Prove me naive on this. Pretty please.

I did, and in my "naiveté" I forgot that (besides Madonna) they're all further down the ladder than the ones I just mentioned...

Are we? Really? Where (in my "naiveté") did I say I want artists to be exploited because they're inferior?


Anyways, I've got naivety to nurture; stop educating me for Christ's sake!


.

Last edited by emilision; 20th July 2012 at 01:45 AM.. Reason: A faceplam in the hand is worth two in the bush...
Old 20th July 2012
  #1798
Living in Australia myself I have to disagree with 'Kaoz'.
The scene here is very difficult to sustain. Many artists are part timers.
There is a plethora of cover bands playing the major venues - Tribute To Bob Dylan, Classic Albums Live etc.
There is a very bleak future for young Aussie musicians, due to the poor state of the live scene here, poor record sales (other than for US/UK artists) and the tyranny of distance.

But then when 'Kaoz' states the 'industry deserves to die', you can see how confused this person is.
1
Share
Old 20th July 2012
  #1799
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
I don't think Wikipedia would have backed the anti-SOPA thing so much if it was just legislation protecting artists rights...
Well Wales is philosophically motivated by 'free information'. It's the blood in his veins, by which any other consideration is secondary.
I don't think 'free information' and commercial music* can mix.
*I say 'commercial' in the sense of music that has a fee attached, not top 40.
Old 20th July 2012
  #1800
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Well Wales is philosophically motivated by 'free information'. It's the blood in his veins, by which any other consideration is secondary.
I don't think 'free information' and commercial music* can mix.
*I say 'commercial' in the sense of music that has a fee attached, not top 40.
I agree with you there; Wales seems a bit full of himself too...he wants to be remembered as "someone who changed the world"...that said, I believe Wikipedia overall has become more democratic than just Jimmy's project.

Spot on, that is the essence of the problem.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump