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 21st July 2012
  #1831
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Gotchas are a form of diminishing the opposing viewpoint when ideas can't.
When it comes to the traditional definition of a "gotcha", I would generally agree with the sentiment above. But the "gotchas" that seem to so-wound sound_music are not cut from that cloth; they appear to be corrections to misstatements and misrepresentations, and so I laud them as technical corrections, which I would have imagined that one so pedantic and condescending would have appreciated.
Old 21st July 2012
  #1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
Isn't the position that you describe entirely in line with my own remarks? As in change the law, don't break the law? When I say subvert in the quote above, it is the breaking of the law that I speak toward -- I can only make sense of a difference between the position I express and the one that you do if subvert is somehow taken in a different context.
The difference is your strong view that no one should subvert copyright to suit their own agenda. My reality is I accept people will infringe on copyright ('subvert' the law), just like they fiddle the odd tax receipt, and drive over the speed limit. I'm just pointing out it becomes damaging when the scale of 'subversion' gets out of control, threatens to become the new norm.
I'm trying to persuade consumers that a short term gain (free and ubiquitous entertainment) is a negative for them in the longer run. At the same time I will criticise business leaders in entertainment for price gouging and region locking for profit alone. I am also happy to negotiate on changes to copyright to reflect new technology. I wont go as far as to make all content free and ubiquitous, for the reasons I just stated.
I see you as more hardcore because you post things like "An individual who disagrees with the public consensus on the treatment of these works, as embodied in the form of democratic law, is not entitled to therefore subvert it" and seem to believe that's what musicians are trying to do.... 'subvert' the 'public consensus'.
No, musicians are speaking up in support of hard won rights in the workplace. 'Reasonable' is embodied by musicians debating in places like this, and going ahead and giving away free music to some degree. 'Unreasonable' is downloading for free all the entertainment you want, just because it's possible, and by persuading oneself you are a freedom fighter, struggling against some Orwellian dictatorship.
Old 21st July 2012
  #1833
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
The difference is your strong view that no one should subvert copyright to suit their own agenda. My reality is I accept people will infringe on copyright ('subvert' the law), just like they fiddle the odd tax receipt, and drive over the speed limit.
I can understand this distinction as a answer to the clarity that I asked for in a previous post. In response, I would say that the nature of the general acceptance for minor violations that you reference above (and of their equivalent in terms of copyright) strays into the realm of enforcement (or lack thereof when inappropriate for minor trespass), which I purposefully avoided addressing (partially in adherence to the forum guidelines). When pressed, however, I will say that I do not take so uncompromising a view in that regard; rest assured that I was only outlining the general theory of and justification for copyright, rather than prescribing the extent to which it must be enforced in order to have functional value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I see you as more hardcore because you post things like "An individual who disagrees with the public consensus on the treatment of these works, as embodied in the form of democratic law, is not entitled to therefore subvert it" and seems to assume that's what musicians are trying to do.... 'subvert' the 'public consensus'.
I am happy to in turn clarify, then, that you are quite surely inferring far too much from the post in which the quote originates. I can tell you without hesitation that I make no such assumption (nor intend to convey such assumption) as you describe here.
Old 21st July 2012
  #1834
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
As an observer of this sub-thread, I find it amusing how...
and i find it amusing you write like the nerdy cousin from the fresh prince of bell air talks. so i guess we all find different things amusing...

(do you actually talk like that in real life, or just pretend to on the internet because it sounds so classy?!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
"Gotchas" are the rhetorical embodiment of the state of being technically correct ....
gotchas are nothing more than a poor substitute for a real argument, or actual knowledge.

regarding "pedantry": i think you've confused my (oft criticized) sense of humour with that impressive big word, carlton.

taking the piss is the way i amuse myself when interesting discussion fails here. i admit that. (but i think it always comes across a lot harder in writing than the live show... dunno.) anyway, it's one of the only things i find fun about the internet anymore... don't take that away from me too! it's kind of a guilty pleasure...
1
Share
Old 21st July 2012
  #1835
Lives for gear
 
Kaoz's Avatar
The Funk Brothers have had more number one hits than Elvis, The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, and The Beatles combined.

So there.
Old 21st July 2012
  #1836
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
The Funk Brothers have had more number one hits than Elvis, The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, and The Beatles combined.

So there.
Yeah, but there was at least 50 or 60 of them, plus the writers, arrangers, and actual performers.

So there?
Old 21st July 2012
  #1837
Lives for gear
 
Kaoz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murray View Post
Yeah, but there was at least 50 or 60 of them, plus the writers, arrangers, and actual performers.

So there?
There really wasn't. Officially, there was 13 of them.

Plus, the writers, arrangers and performers were all the same people.

It would be more if you included the vocalists who sang on the tracks, but it still wouldn't be anywhere near 50-60.
Old 21st July 2012
  #1838
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
There really wasn't. Officially, there was 13 of them.

Plus, the writers, arrangers and performers were all the same people.

It would be more if you included the vocalists who sang on the tracks, but it still wouldn't be anywhere near 50-60.
And those 13 played on all the number ones? What were the number ones?

Wiki lists about 60 musicians (that's not even all of them) who played from '59-'72, plus 14 arrangers, and by performers I meant all the acts, the singers, which is probably another 20 or 30 people.

The Beatles were (mostly) 4 guys doing everything, writing, performing, singing, arranging, with George Martin doing almost all the (string) arranging if and when needed.
Old 21st July 2012
  #1839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 6ccb844 View Post
Wow this thread picked up quicker than sonic being hit with a butt plug.. In a sentence what have I missed?
maybe this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camera View Post
The pie is the same size and maybe even grown, but the slices are smaller.
that is completely, totally, and factually not true. the pie is less than half the size it was.

Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half in 2000s - Feb. 2, 2010

Old 21st July 2012
  #1840
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
How do you define 'top musician'?
They are those monsters of rock and pop. Many of them are found on Facebook reminising about their former glory days. I was just arguing politics with Mahogany Rush's great guitarist Frank Marino. Most on that site didn't know who he was.

There are so many of these guys out there, none of them get any attention anymore and some are still monsters of rock!

Dave Mason is up in Santa Barbara recording new stuff. He said it's only for him and his friends, a nice hobby. You probably will never hear any of it.

Music can be a personal experience. Not every personal experience is meant to be shared with the public.
Old 21st July 2012
  #1841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
They are those monsters of rock and pop. Many of them are found on Facebook reminising about their former glory days. I was just arguing politics with Mahogany Rush's great guitarist Frank Marino. Most on that site didn't know who he was.

There are so many of these guys out there, none of them get any attention anymore and some are still monsters of rock!

Dave Mason is up in Santa Barbara recording new stuff. He said it's only for him and his friends, a nice hobby. You probably will never hear any of it.

Music can be a personal experience. Not every personal experience is meant to be shared with the public.
that's what Prince says (sorta).

Music News: Prince promises NO new music? | HeedMagOnline
Old 26th July 2012
  #1842
this just in:
Digital Music News - Billy Corgan: Pitchfork Would Stifle Nirvana Today...

...more interesting observations from Mr. Corgan.
Old 26th July 2012
  #1843
Lives for gear
 
Kaoz's Avatar
He is starting to come across as a disgruntled retiree in his old(er) age - but again I tend to agree with him.

Is interesting that he singled out Pitchfork though lol.
Old 26th July 2012
  #1844
Gear Addict
 
Wolf LeProducer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
this just in:
Digital Music News - Billy Corgan: Pitchfork Would Stifle Nirvana Today...

...more interesting observations from Mr. Corgan.

These are very interesting observations.. Fortunately, these people, and everybody else, buy sex.. thus, "the business plan of my record label is to sell sex." Not music...
Old 30th July 2012
  #1845
Old 31st July 2012
  #1846
Lives for gear
 
sound_music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
Lol!

Old 1st August 2012
  #1847
Gear Head
 

My friend is the greatest musician i have ever met, seen, or played with. He has made a good living for the past 9 years doing nothing but music. If you are good, money will always be there for you. Without good songs you can't rely on money coming from your music. Not everyone is entitled to making enough money to live off of music. If you are talented and can't earn a living its a shame, if you are average and can't make a living there is nothing wrong with that scenario.

As far as the decline of record sales, im my opinion it coincides perfectly with the decline of good songs being written and recorded. After 1999 the number of good songs released declined rapidly. Either labels started signing worse bands or good bands stopped forming and seeking out labels. Good music still sells itself, people will buy what is good, what is just ok they will not buy but will take for free.

Napster didn't ruin Metallica, Metallica stopped writing cool songs. They hadn't produced a good album in 8 years and then they blamed Napster for their decreased income. People didn't stop buying their albums because they pirated them, they stopped buying them because the albums weren't good. This type of thing happened all the time long before the internet.

A good album will still sell, crap won't sell. There was a time when crap would get bought up, and it still happens sometimes - look at John Mayer's last 3 albums.
Old 1st August 2012
  #1848
Gear Addict
 
Wolf LeProducer's Avatar
 

When Cliff dies it was all over for them. Nothing good since that bus accident imo. Then they cut hair, and they won a grammy? omfg.. useless
1
Share
Old 1st August 2012
  #1849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzy77 View Post
A good album will still sell, crap won't sell.
both will sell less than half what they did a decade ago and that's the point, less than half... good or crap, less than half of what they did a decade ago, let that sink in.

Artists, Know Thy Enemy – Who’s Ripping You Off and How… | The Trichordist

If the Internet is working for Musicians, Why aren’t more Musicians Working Professionally? | The Trichordist
Old 2nd August 2012
  #1850
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
both will sell less than half what they did a decade ago and that's the point, less than half... good or crap, less than half of what they did a decade ago, let that sink in.

Artists, Know Thy Enemy – Who’s Ripping You Off and How… | The Trichordist

If the Internet is working for Musicians, Why aren’t more Musicians Working Professionally? | The Trichordist
So? Half of a lot is still a lot . . . that is the point. Let what sink in? Some statistic i already knew? Those stats Haven't stopped a lot of people i am friends with from flying around the world and buying expensive crap. They are good though, you know? Actually have good songs? Any of this sinking in? Big deal if you sell 3 million instead of 6 million. Selling 100,000 instead of 200,000 hurts, but 200,000 record sales doesn't set you up for life financially anyway. THAT is the point, if you have great material you will come out ok.
Old 2nd August 2012
  #1851
Lives for gear
 
Kaoz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzy77 View Post
So? Half of a lot is still a lot . . . that is the point. Let what sink in? Some statistic i already knew? Those stats Haven't stopped a lot of people i am friends with from flying around the world and buying expensive crap. They are good though, you know? Actually have good songs? Any of this sinking in? Big deal if you sell 3 million instead of 6 million. Selling 100,000 instead of 200,000 hurts, but 200,000 record sales doesn't set you up for life financially anyway. THAT is the point, if you have great material you will come out ok.
Actually, the way the last twenty years or so has gone, the reverse is even more true. Crap music tends to sell more than good music (the definition of both being totally subjective of course).
Old 3rd August 2012
  #1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzy77 View Post
So? Half of a lot is still a lot . . . that is the point.
really? You wanna make half in ten years, doing the same work or more?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzy77 View Post
Let what sink in? Some statistic i already knew?
so you don't think an industry and everyone in it getting boned for a decade is a problem? really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzy77 View Post
Those stats Haven't stopped a lot of people i am friends with from flying around the world and buying expensive crap. They are good though, you know? Actually have good songs? Any of this sinking in? Big deal if you sell 3 million instead of 6 million. Selling 100,000 instead of 200,000 hurts, but 200,000 record sales doesn't set you up for life financially anyway. THAT is the point, if you have great material you will come out ok.
so the only people with great material and that deserve to be paid are the ones with major label deals?

really? wow...

Old 14th August 2012
  #1853
Lives for gear
 

rack gear

Yes. The ones that should get paid are the ones that have good product.

The ones that shoot stuff out their arz should not get paid because it sucks.
Old 14th August 2012
  #1854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camera View Post
rack gear

Yes. The ones that should get paid are the ones that have good product.

The ones that shoot stuff out their arz should not get paid because it sucks.
funny, so know you have the monopoly on taste? and so you'd steal music you don't like, that's even more funny... who steals things they don't like and don't want?
Old 14th August 2012
  #1855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camera View Post
rack gear

Yes. The ones that should get paid are the ones that have good product.

The ones that shoot stuff out their arz should not get paid because it sucks.
Although I agree with Rack, I'll just add that what you suggest is nothing new.
You buy music you like, you don't buy music you don't like.
That has been the case for many, many years. So why download music you neither like or respect?
Old 15th August 2012
  #1856
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
I glanced over some of it, but that is beside the point: reading legislation is not for those unversed in law, sorry, unless you have a law degree you cannot interpret what is between the lines...

I agree with Wikipedia's stance on SOPA. The message from the Wikipedia Blackout: Please leave the Internet alone — Wikimedia blog

Also, that's a YouTube video by a professor at NYU. Not just some idiot...Clay Shirky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's agree to disagree on this one.
In other words you didn't bother to read it and just swallowed the lies you were fed.

Thanks a lot.

You do understand that Wikipedia has a vested interest in and is largely funded by the anti-copyright crowd? And that Google, one of the primary players in the anti-copyright movement invests heavily in funding academics who will deliver opinions favoring thjeir position?
1
Share
Old 15th August 2012
  #1857
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision View Post
Hey man, I'm with you on this...all I was saying is that they should go after the companies that are making money out of piracy/exploitation (directly and indirectly) rather than some end-users...for their own sake too.

For example, the FBI know well enough to go after drug dealers/creators and attack the end-users by education rather than heavily prosecuting or making examples out of them.


Sorry but this is the paradox of copyright legislation; copying is fundamental to the creative process, Beethoven copied Mozart/Haydn, and certainly didn't compensate them for it... though occasionally had the humility to dedicate a thing or two. I'm sure glad Jeff Buckley was allowed to make use of all those songs without some legislation breathing down his throat. If every time an up and coming artist got up on stage to sing a cover, he was arrested for "piracy", well, bring that to its logical conclusion...

Basically, police it at the point(s) of revenue, and leave the kids alone.
Wrong on all counts.
1
Share
Old 15th August 2012
  #1858
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamKapala View Post
Yes they do... Insurance companies, and Medicare, and Medicaid...

It's similar, actually: send a bill for $1,000, get $180 back. Pretty cool.
Not allowed to discuss those topics here, but you're wrong.
1
Share
Old 18th August 2012
  #1859
Gear Nut
 

There is money in live music. That's why there are more tours and festivals than ever before. Hundreds of touring A/V companies make money along with the musicians and promoters. Recently, AES called us up and asked why we don't exhibit anymore. The answer: The people who attend AES are mostly people doing recording, and they do not have much money. That's why AES is shrinking too.

Anyone can go on Amazon and buy adequate gear to start recording. With enough work and time some can even produce fun-to-listen-to music. Pros who do studio recordings have to compete with amateurs who often have new and better ideas, just less skill. Some very successful producers work with newbies and get paid to help them realize those ideas, because the newbies have some money.

Getting up on stage is another matter and takes a much higher level of skill. People do pay for it and ticket prices can be pretty high.

The internet commoditizes everything that passes through it. Theft of intellectual property doubles the pain, but infringement occurs on and off the net. Stealing is clearly wrong, yet, we have plenty of situations where the musician can only hope that someone would want to steal his music. This kind of situation leads to poverty.

Meanwhile, some musicians with skill, like the one below, still self-produce and put out something real good. He still has to beg you to pay for it.

Will you pay for this download?

--::--:: SEAN ELDON - THE SAUSAGE FACTORY ::--::--
Old 18th August 2012
  #1860
Lives for gear
 
seaneldon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Eh...this record is a little campy for me...

I'll pass.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump