The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
I think the reason music sales are in massive decline is:
Old 31st August 2012
  #31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf LeProducer View Post
Most of this music sucks ass. Plain and simple.

I would not buy anything from Adele, Justin Bibber, Lady Gag Gag, Taylor Swift, Reeyawna, Leetle Wayne, Goat e "yea." Etc, etc, etc...
Well, the only thing is, the public doesn't agree with you because that music actually sells enough to recoup before the parasites render it unsaleable.

Other, "better" music doesn't have the quick sales that pop does and therefore is vulnerable to market erosion due to filesharing - which makes it a poor investment for an industry with limited free capital and a need to show a profit to shareholders.

Quote:
Anything I have heard on FM radio in the last ten years.. I would not buy.
No oldies stations in your area?

Don't blame the music business for what gets played on radio - it's radio that has the power here, or actually the advertisers who pay for airtime who dictate what gets played. So most big stations have to follow programming rules set by Madison Avenue focus groups.

If the record companies actually had any real influence you'd see a much wider range of music on the air and record companies would be able to sign and promote a broader range of music. But they don't so they can't.

You have to understand that the ad agencies and radio stations really don't give a damn about music at all - what they care about is listeners, which is why so many former music stations have been converted to talk radio and sports formats.
Old 31st August 2012
  #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamon View Post
There's a difference between wanting to listen to something, and being willing to pay to listen to it.
Only if they have the option of stealing instead of paying.
Old 31st August 2012
  #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
And that's good?
Why don't we ban professional sport and go back to the 'traditional' ways like watching a rag tag of neighbours playing basketball in the local court rather than Lakers vs Nets at MSG. Or the tradition of Olympians taking all four weeks of their allowable annual vacation from the day job to compete in Rio.
Old 31st August 2012
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamon View Post
Testdrive one at a dealership? Ask your friend to try theirs? If you want to own one, you can't, because you can't download a car.

But you can download a song.
If you're a thief, sure.

You can steal a car, too.
Old 31st August 2012
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamon View Post
The artist is out of the picture. It's like saying you eat what is right by the farmer.

It's about cost, not US dollars. Nothing is zero cost, not even downloading for free.

There are songs right now I want 1, but even pirating would cost 2, so I don't.
So you're in favor of slavery?

Farmers get paid for their work. Hell, lots of farmers get government subsidies NOT to work.
Old 31st August 2012
  #36
Gear Maniac
 

rack gear, I was with you in reflecting on the amazingness of it all, until you slammed me into a brick wall with the ending about how SALES should've increased.

That just doesn't follow. It's like you tried to take the retail stores of the '90s, and cram them into the virtual world and multiply, expecting it to behave the same.

Who says music is an item for sale? Recordings are in product form, and when they were printed onto vinyl or plastic, then it follows that you'd have to buy the media.

But this is bits now. The material medium is gone. Why do people keep viewing it as a product, where you pay for a collection of bits as if it's a material object?

You know what a download is worth to me? About 1/100th of a cent. I'm serious. An MP3 for sale is not worth anywhere near 99 cents. That's insanely priced.

In fact, internet bandwidth, the actual real-world costs, are only pennies per gigabyte. An MP3 song is like 5 megabytes. Even at high $1/GB that's like, $.005.

Once a recording is produced, there's no more costs involved. If 1 person downloads, or 1 billion, there's no more cost to do anything because it's already made.

One way of covering costs of production is to get a loan, produce something, and sell it for a price that allows you to pay back the loan. But that's not the only way.

There's no requirement that you pay for your production by selling song downloads. To do that, yeah, it might require $1 per person. But that's too much.

It's not too much for everyone, but for many people who know how to download the same song, with less restrictions, included in ISP fee, it is.

It is not stealing. It is not piracy. It is not a surprise, or the reason why you're going out of business, and your industry is losing relevance, etc.

There's no expectation that because it's so cheap and easy to buy music today, any time you want, without limit, that sales shoot up.

Maybe people just want to believe that, because it's their job, and they wish to be rich, with millions of people adoring their works.

Maybe when they see people downloading for free, in the millions, they feel cheated, because they should've been millionaires and they're not.

Maybe they even can't pay their big loans they used for overpriced studio gear, hairline tweaking audiophile technicians, and bling videos.

But crying about it and repeating the same confused conclusions as if they're gospel doesn't change any of that.

Start with the premise that charging 1 penny per song downloaded to cover bandwidth expense isn't worth it.

That you can't charge more, because you're not going to use sales of end product to pay for past costs anymore, you're done with that model.

From now on, you're going to produce music, and have it all funded, without relying on song sales. Just try that, even if you think it's stupid.

Or not, I don't care. I just feel kind of bad when I visit this forum and see so much of this crazy stubborn ideology being reinforced by peers.

Outside this little bubble, everyone knows you're nuts. Sometimes I want to link people to this place so they can be shocked and laugh.

OMG THEY'RE STEALING MAH SONGS
Old 31st August 2012
  #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamon View Post

Who says music is an item for sale?
The person who created it from a blank piece of paper (or default arrangement in Logic).
If they decide to distribute it without a charge, then that product is free.




Quote:
Recordings are in product form, and when they were printed onto vinyl or plastic, then it follows that you'd have to buy the media.

But this is bits now. The material medium is gone. Why do people keep viewing it as a product, where you pay for a collection of bits as if it's a material object?

OK, persuade me on how a recording is not a product. A movie is a product, so is a theatre show. There is no Top Gun or Star Wars in live theatre. So Top Gun and Star Wars are separate products. How is a music recording anything different to a movie?

Quote:
You know what a download is worth to me? About 1/100th of a cent. I'm serious. An MP3 for sale is not worth anywhere near 99 cents. That's insanely priced.
Like hundreds before you, you are confusing the content with the package. The content you are paying for is the music. The item you deem worth less than 99c is not what you essentially want to own, it's the delivery method only.
I'll sell you an mp3 of white noise for 'about 1/100th of a cent'. Of course you wouldn't be interested, because you only value the actual recorded music, not the mp3.
Old 31st August 2012
  #38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamon View Post
It doesn't work that way though when they're literally removed from the picture. When you go to the grocery store, there's no farmers there asking a price. It comes down to your desires, and the costs involved.
I guess you're one of those people who really believes that food comes from stores.

Here in San Francisco we have a world famous Dungeness crab season. Every year in the stores the price goes up. You know why? Because every year the crab fishermen hold out for higher prices (because of dwindling catch). The fishermen set the prices, not the stores. The stores pay the distributor, the distributor pays the fishermen. Each successive step in the chain adds on a bit for their profit.

However if you buy your food at a farmer's market there definitely ARE farmers there. And lots of people around here do just that.

Quote:
If I discover that I downloaded your music without paying, and I've used it to either improve my life or help me survive, and you're right here, in the picture, saying you need money to eat, I'll type my PayPal password.
What if I don't need it to eat? What if I want to buy a book or see a movie? Shouldn't I still be paid for my work? (assuming you use it.) What business of it is yours what I do with my money?

Quote:
But I'm not going to bother to go seek out legal channels, read a bunch of terms, create account, setup payment method, then have to undertake the task of previewing songs, and thinking about which I should buy with my limited funds.
Everybody's funds are limited. That's why rich people have money - they hang on to their "limited funds". <gratuitous comment about well known public figures who refuse to disclose their tax statements redacted>

Guess what? You don't NEED music. So if your funds are so limited, don't buy it. But if you're unwilling to pay what it costs that's YOUR PROBLEM, not mine, so don't steal it.

Quote:
I will either download some songs when it's practically free, or not. Music isn't in short supply.
Quality music is, it seems. Or people wouldn't spend so much time bitching about how new music is crap.

Quote:
If all the places to get the professional stuff free were gone, then I'd just be listening to less polished recordings made in bedrooms.
So why don't you just do that now? There's lots of free music on sounclick. Don't steal what isn't yours.

Quote:
People only pay if there's a real reason to.
Like maybe because they're not parasites? Or maybe they want to make sure that something they like can continue to be produced?

You guys bitch about how new music is crap but you're not willing to pay for the production of music that isn't crap.

Guess what? You get what you pay for.

Quote:
For a lot of people, they simply don't know how to download for free, and their hardware MP3 player came with some software they installed that sets up a scenario where you pay $1 for a song.
Believe it or not there are some people who are not comfortable with the idea of stealing whatever they want.

Quote:
They're not paying because they're doing the right thing, trying to support quality produce from organic farmers. They're just in a different equation, and the costs to buy are smaller than their desire and funds, so they do.
There's a well known principle in psychology called PROJECTION where a person who engages in antisocial or damaging behavior "justifies" it by claiming that everybody does it and the those who don't would if they had a chance.

Some people, on the other hand, do things because they're the right things to do and because they understand that if everybody takes and nobody gives your society falls apart.

Quote:
f there are quality producers, and I won't have anything good to listen to if they aren't supported, then get out there and make yourself part of the local picture. Come on a "pirate" site and post your PayPal address.


Why should you be allowed to sponge off my investment? Do you understand the meaning of the word "parasite"?

Quote:
Seriously, do that. It might be surprising to people who keep equating cars to songs, but not to "pirates". They are clever and powerful, setting up distribution bigger than record companies out of a community spirit.
Right. That's why Kim Dotcom has a stable of fast luxury cars, a jet, and a big estate. That's why the people behind Pirate Bay are right wing, racist financiers.

Dig it, junior - the whole thing behind the piracy game as it's currently played is MONEY - lots and lots of MONEY. The people running the sites - even most of the small, private sites - are doing it for bucks. If a small private site asks for donations foe "expenses" and 1000 people each give $20/month, which is not at all unreasonable to expect, that's $20,000/month, which even after operating expenses is pretty good pay for just running a Bittorrent tracker. Plus anything they make of banner advertising.

Quote:
They are your friends, if you want them to be. If you see people downloading your stuff unauthorized somewhere, go introduce yourself to them, and post your PayPal. I guarantee you'll receive some payment.

That's a real guarantee, where if someone reading this does it and gets nothing, I will PayPal you.
If they're really my friends they'll buy my product. Then they'll not only be supporting me, they'll be supporting the people who support me.
Old 31st August 2012
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quasar View Post
Are you really going to use the way an American record company exec might have seen economic reality in 1950 or 1985 as the basis for how music and culture are supposed to interact in all times and in all places? Is this some default gold standard for that?
Well, when was more consistently good music released per year? Between 1950 and 1985 or between 1999 and now?
Old 31st August 2012
  #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
What I find amusing is the kind of person who can't find anything good to listen to now would have been the same sort of person who, had they also been 40 years old in 1967 , wouldn't have given Aretha or Hendrix a listen either. Some people only like th music they grew up with.... to me - that's not someone who loves music generally but rather equates music to times in their life, which is as good a reason as any. I'm more of a "likes music generally - intrigued to see what people from all walks do..".

Personally? I've found stuff I have liked from every single year since recording began... love Gershwin, love Dylan, love the Stooges ( o yes) - > Know what? Love modern rock from QOTSA or Jack White... but I also like Adele and Gaga... cant stand Beiber and the phoney ****e around - but you can't lob Gaga, Adele of Goatboy into the same pile. Its the same difference as listening to Wings and the Bay City Rollers back in the day - one was pretty good, one utter trash. Or the Eurthymics in 84 and Modern Romance. One great - one ****e.

Im gonna make a guess here - and it's not negative, but is what it is - OP are you now about 36 years old?
I generally agree with you but I also must say that although the amount of vacuous pop has remained consistent for the last 50 or 60 years, over the last decade there is a lot less really good stuff receiving major development, promotion, or funding. And a lot of the better stuff now is actually pop - like Lady Gaga. One wonders if Stephanie Germanotta would still be doing her "Gaga" act if she had had an opportunity to pursue the more serious side of her music?
Old 31st August 2012
  #41
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

yup. Cant argue with that.

There are a lot of cool acts around though - just not in the mainstream (although the mainstream aint that bad - just not particularly for me).
Old 31st August 2012
  #42
Lives for gear
 
jrhager84's Avatar
 

John and I disagree quite a but, but I'm with him 100% on this.

Oh yeah, mp3 is a no-cost method of distribution, but who recorded it? Where was it recorded? What mics? Session players? ME? Producer? You get the gist.

You act like you hit 'record', fart into a mic for three minutes, then release it on iTunes... Lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777
Old 31st August 2012
  #43
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Well, when was more consistently good music released per year? Between 1950 and 1985 or between 1999 and now?
About the same!! Cus as much of a genius Les Paul was - his records were poop!!!
Old 31st August 2012
  #44
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
... You have to understand that the ad agencies and radio stations really don't give a damn about music at all - what they care about is listeners, which is why so many former music stations have been converted to talk radio and sports formats.
Do you think that that talk radio and sports formats have become significantly more popular (appeal to a wider audience) than they used to?

If they have, then the reason for the conversions is logical.
If they haven't, then music has become less popular. You can hopefully see where this is going...
Old 31st August 2012
  #45
Gear Maniac
 

Chris,

Legally, yes, if we respect a copyright owner's claim to intellectual property, and honor that system, then they should be able to decide if they want their works to be distributed freely or not.

A recording can be a product. You certainly can view it that way if you want. It has worked in the past, and the recording industry's model for the past decades was successful at the time. It's a valid model.

I'm really not confused about the difference between the material and information recorded on it. I understand where you're coming from. There's just other models, and I was trying to share one.

John,

When there's a limited supply of crabs, the store has a choice, either pay the higher price per unit, because the fisherman has a set living cost that is now spread over less units, or not pay and have no crabs.

With music, if you expect to only sell 10 songs that month, so try to charge $100 per sale, I have the choice of either paying and having the song, or not paying and having the song. It's not the same as crabs.

If you want to make it similar, here's what you do, you say, "I am the great John Eppstein; I have a new song to be released this month, and I need $1,000 to cover my remaining expenses. If you want this song to be out there, for you and all to hear, I need that $1,000; here is my PayPal."

Then it really is like the crabs, in the sense that the item in demand truly is scarce. It is only because you say it is, but still, it is, and that's all that counts. So you have power to charge whatever you need.

Of course, just like the fishermen, they risk asking more than it's worth, when the store doesn't need crabs that badly, or maybe there was a news story that said they're unhealthy, and so the fisherman just gets crabs.

You could end up like that, some broke dude with crabs. It all depends. Are your works truly valuable? If so, are they truly worth your requirements to be able or willing to produce? If they are, then you'll be paid.

What won't happen, and never should, is you say, "I am going to produce music, and therefore I deserve to be paid!". Just as there's details to the supply side, so too is there to the demand. People need to actually need it.

You say, "you don't NEED music". Why do you think people want music then? Do you think it's all just excess fluffy entertainment? I think people do NEED music, to survive, and for the world to turn as it does.

Right now there's a lady out there just diagnosed with cancer, and the only thing keeping her together is a special heartfelt song. After she wipes the tears, it will give her strength to make the dreaded call to tell her family.

Who cares if she "pirated" that song! All that matters is the production costs, including living expenses, be covered. But there is no requirement that they be covered by direct sales of individual songs as if they were crabs.

Even "piracy" distribution centers have costs, and deserved to be paid too. But by opposing them, you miss out on a great opportunity to team up and become part of the gains.

It's like people decades ago who opposed selling their records in stores, using the popular model, because it was "selling out". They missed out, just like people who oppose this one do today.

We don't have to buy your product to support you and be your friend. Because, it doesn't have to be a product. You can keep calling your records crabs, and trying to sell them as such, but I don't have to believe it.

Why does it have to be a debate, with opposition? I'm not going to pay to download your song, if you have one. Why is that so difficult to accept? I have money, and will pay in ways that make sense. You'll still eat.

Maybe. Or maybe the issue is the old model was built on this risk factor, where the labels didn't really know how to find what people actually wanted, so had to play this game to maximize chances of hitting the lottery.

With the fishermen, they have a good product from the start. They know that an Alaskan King Crab is going to be in demand. They know where it is, and how to find it. They just have to do the work, and they will be paid.

But with music, who knows what people will want. You can find a big crab and everyone go "Ewwwww, that's terrible". What? Well, how do you make a business based on that? It doesn't work, when you don't even know what to sell.

So maybe we've got all these 90%-ers, the people involved in the production of rotting crabmeat no one wants. They bought big boats, risked their lives to go out into the seas, having to learn and spend in the process, to make music.

Then people are like, "We're not buying that crap!", and they're screwed, because MUSIC IS NOT CRABS so they can't eat what they got. Then it's not about understanding, it's just the fact that a lot of people are screwed.

That sucks. But maybe once people understand that, they won't feel so bad when they go into debt producing what no one wants. Maybe it needs to be reversed, where instead of record companies give contracts, listeners do.

Maybe some amateur artists submit demos to the public, where everyone can hear and vote. Then they invest in them, with pledges to cover production and living costs for the artist, and the whole system.

Then, when the pledges reach the threshold, it all activates, everyone gets paid, and there is a final result free for download. That way, all the losers of the system don't lose much, and there's no big loans involved.

It's all paid for at the time of production, and instead of labels guessing who will sell, the people buy BEFORE it's produced. Then they get their free music, the chain of people involved in making it get paid, everyone's happy.

Is that really so stupid or impossible? Must everyone just keep insisting upon the same old broken view? Can't you consider something like this, because maybe, I'm not just some evil pirate idiot kid with no clue?

If you're one of the artists whose demos won't be liked, then you have no personal interest in accepting a system like that. You just want what'd get YOU paid, without care for anything else. Then grumpily keep moaning about piracy.

But you could still be involved. If only 10 people want your music, fine, go with it. If you could get $25 investment from each to fund some production, that's $250. That's not enough to live, but if they'd pay it every 3 months?

That's like $80/month to play with some bedroom gear and make some music that 10 people actually really care about enough to make a special effort to keep you producing. You'd need another job, so what? Sounds like a good gig.
Old 31st August 2012
  #46
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamon View Post
Chris,.
Even "piracy" distribution centers have costs, and deserved to be paid too. But by opposing them, you miss out on a great opportunity to team up and become part of the gains.
This single paragraph makes any point you have moot.

Stealing is stealing.

BTW - Columbian drug lords have operating costs too. Should I team up and become' part of the gains?"
Old 31st August 2012
  #47
Gear Maniac
 

Stealing is stealing, except for when it's not. Downloading music is not stealing.

First music was crabs, now it's illegal drugs. This is why the industry is failing.
Old 31st August 2012
  #48
Gear Nut
 

Not to get into a pissing match with someone who clearly is correct all the time, but you used crabs and music in your reply which enables me to make an allusion to another ILLEGAL enterprise that has operating costs.

The industry isn't failing - people like you steal from it which makes it difficult for any aspiring artist that wants their music paid for to survive.

Use whatever logic you like to make yourself feel good about stealing. Downloading music that you did not pay for, that is not given away for free, is stealing.
Old 31st August 2012
  #49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamon View Post
But you could still be involved. If only 10 people want your music, fine, go with it. If you could get $25 investment from each to fund some production, that's $250. That's not enough to live, but if they'd pay it every 3 months?

That's like $80/month to play with some bedroom gear and make some music that 10 people actually really care about enough to make a special effort to keep you producing. You'd need another job, so what? Sounds like a good gig.
Yeah see, this type thinking is fine for model airplanes, amateur photogs, amateur watercolors etc.

That sounds like a sh*t gig to me. Further, your argument just lost a massive amount of credibility in my mind as well.

If you want to keep doing things on an amateur level ($80 a month?), there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with it. That said, charging people for amateur work is a bit shifty don't you think?
At least not without a disclaimer.

It's fine if somebody makes a few bucks off of a largely amatuer piece of work now and then, but to suggest the whole of the music industry take this model henceforth, is ridiculous.

I mean, if I took my car to a mechanic, and he did an amateur job fixing it, I'd be freaking pissed off. Or my doctor? Or dentist? Account?

I know what you are thinking. Music is not as important as the service a Doctor performs.

Before you commit to that line of thinking, are you certain of this?

Even a Dentist listens to freaking music while he's got you in his chair. Again, people do not realize how much of a role music plays in their everyday life. The only way they would, is if it was somehow taken from them.

Thing is, the argument is that music is art, art is subjective. If it sounds crappy, and people want to pay you for it----take their money. It's only crappy in some people's mind right?

This is where I don't agree with the "Bedroom recording revolution" guys.

I'm all for Capitalism, but the Capitalists of old always put in 110%. And it paid off. I have a problem paying anybody I don't feel is putting in their 100%.
Period.

I feel GUILTY taking people's money for something I didn't put 110% into. IMHO, you should too, because the public deserves better than a "record" recorded with a $40 mic and a fastrack in a bedroom. Even if you are freaking Jimi Hendrix.

Give them some credit. They will know better quality when they hear it. They are only taking what's out there, because that's what's available to them. And half aren't even paying for it anyway.

The problem here, is again, the devaluation of music. Things have gotten so bad, that people are now trying to sell what used to be a crap demo as a piece of finished, professional work. And the uneducated and young, don't know the difference, and won't until it is presented to them.

People deserve better, and to get better quality recordings. Somebody has to pay for it. It shouldn't be the artist.

I know that was a scatterbrained post, but to be honest, I couldn't really make out what you were getting at either. Besides maybe it's ok to dilute the quality of the music production industry with projects that cost a whopping $80-$259 a month to produce?

It goes back to the THREAD TITLE anyways. The reason music sales are in massive decline is...

A) People are not paying for their music, and are getting it for free. Duh.

B) the available music is now diluted with lots of crap that nobody in their right mind would want to pay for anyways. They do not think it's worth it.

Ya know what? They are probably right.

Doesn't mean good music isn't being produced, but they are not getting it because money for promotion and artist development is gone.

My feeling is half the time they probably download the stuff out of boredom. If you went in and took away half of what they downloaded without paying for, I don't think they'd even care. Because it's crap.

Music has become as valuable as freaking toilet paper to some people.

This is the problem, and there are many reasons for it. The biggest being theft IMHO.

Best regards,
jm
Old 31st August 2012
  #50
Lives for gear
 

AND here I thought this might turn out to be a decent thread before this guy showed up ....

(Imagine a picture of Sadam H. with a match close to the fuse of a stick of dynamite he is holding ....)


IBTL

Last edited by flatfinger; 1st September 2012 at 11:51 PM.. Reason: Because I'm a dolt....
Old 31st August 2012
  #51
Gear Maniac
 

That wasn't scatterbrained, I followed and understood everything. Same with John and Howard's. There's different models for how things can work though. There are individuals, who get emotional because they literally have their livelihood invested and don't have time for theory or risk, they just need the system they invested in to start paying off, and with people defying its rules they have trouble.

I'm sorry about your situations. I hope you can make it work. But you really need to understand it all better to make that happen, because this isn't about emotion, or who can argue the most passionately. It's like social physics. I wasn't trying to say any one way is right, just that, this is how things changed, and when the weather turns to rain in the middle of a paintjob, you can either cry and scream at the heavens, or bring in the cans and figure out how to make it work.

I know this doesn't feel like an act of god, and there seems to be a single group to blame and oppose. Like if you could just fight the pirates, you'd win and all would be well. But that's not the case. There's no pirate goblin stealing your lunch. It's a complex set of variables, that interact together a certain way.

It's true that in theory you could change some to return things to how you want them to behave. If you could just move this slider over here to bring the piracy down to zero, then that value raises over there. But that's not reality. You're never going to do that. You can bet that you can, and maybe you're right, and maybe it works. But others will bet on something else, and it might be that you lose, and they come out on top.

It's not something you should be upset with any people about. Pirates aren't a faceless enemy, they're your friends and family. If people can't begin to consider other views though, then they'll have to go down with the sinking ship, and some will see others who've found successful ways, which they can then copy.

Or maybe I'm just distorted, because I grew up with the internet, and my cultural beliefs include different fundamental principles. That isn't something that can be settled in text on a forum though, it will be proven, with real people, and real lives, over the coming decades.

Good luck to everyone betting, I wish you all could thrive.
Old 31st August 2012
  #52
Lives for gear
 
jrhager84's Avatar
 

You are so dead wrong, Jamon.

Your analogies are so skewed.

If you charge 100/lb for crab, I can choose to buy it, or not buy it.

With music, it's the equivalent of you wanting 100/lb for your crab. I think it's too much. I walk to the back of your truck and take what I want for free.

Theft. End of story.

You really are too much, oh 'enlightened one'. Please, do tell us how we should be compensated for our services...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777
Old 31st August 2012
  #53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Do you think that that talk radio and sports formats have become significantly more popular (appeal to a wider audience) than they used to?

If they have, then the reason for the conversions is logical.
If they haven't, then music has become less popular. You can hopefully see where this is going...
You're making the same mistake the ad agencies are - thinking that their "focus group" decisions have anything at all to do with what listeners really want.

What IS true is that music radio has become significantly less appealing as the programming has been given over to centralized corporate playlists and taken out of the hands of local DJs and program directors.

It's not that the audience for music has decreased. It's that radio is not playing the kind of mix that the audience wants to hear.

Rather than playing the kind of mixed bag of music that stations played in the '60s,. '70s, and early '80s playlists have become narrowly focused and drastically shortened - many stations only have 20 songs in regular rotation now and content has become so homogenized that it might just as well be 5 songs. It's no wonder the audience is bored with it.

(Understand I'm talking about the USA here, I have no idea what the situation is in NZ. And, before somebody jumps in and says "I know the program director at XXX and he still plays what he wants" there are a couple of autonomous stations left. One of them is in LA, which isn't surprising when you think about it. Here in SF there are NO autonomous major stations and even public broadcasting is getting hinky.)
Old 31st August 2012
  #54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamon View Post
Chris,

Legally, yes, if we respect a copyright owner's claim to intellectual property, and honor that system, then they should be able to decide if they want their works to be distributed freely or not.

A recording can be a product. You certainly can view it that way if you want. It has worked in the past, and the recording industry's model for the past decades was successful at the time. It's a valid model.

I'm really not confused about the difference between the material and information recorded on it. I understand where you're coming from. There's just other models, and I was trying to share one.

John,

When there's a limited supply of crabs, the store has a choice, either pay the higher price per unit, because the fisherman has a set living cost that is now spread over less units, or not pay and have no crabs.

With music, if you expect to only sell 10 songs that month, so try to charge $100 per sale, I have the choice of either paying and having the song, or not paying and having the song. It's not the same as crabs.
Sure it is. You don't NEED crabs any more than you NEED music. They're both luxury items.

The problem right now is that people like you have become accustomed to stealing music because the laws have been inadequately enforced.

I wouldn't expect anyone to pay $100 for a song. But I also would expect them to be willing to pay the same amount for a song as for a McDonald's cheeseburger, a king size candy bar, or a can of beer. The song is a lot better value and costs more to produce (unless it becomes a big hit and sells a million copies.)

Now there's some music around now that costs almost nothing to make and is given away for free (kind of the equivalent of living on Ramen Noodles from Food Not Bombs) You're welcome to get all of that for free that you want. But my music costs more than that. It costs more to produce and it is (in some people's opinion) a better product. If you don't agree, that's fine too but don't use it. If I choose to give out a track as a free sample, be my guest, but don't re-upload it. And don't take what I haven't willingly given away.

Quote:
If you want to make it similar, here's what you do, you say, "I am the great John Eppstein; I have a new song to be released this month, and I need $1,000 to cover my remaining expenses. If you want this song to be out there, for you and all to hear, I need that $1,000; here is my PayPal.
Man, you just don't get it.

1.) You need the money for production IN FRONT. Only established acts with an established following can crowdsource a recording.

2.) $1000 wouldn't cover my tape costs.

Quote:
Then it really is like the crabs, in the sense that the item in demand truly is scarce. It is only because you say it is, but still, it is, and that's all that counts. So you have power to charge whatever you need.

Of course, just like the fishermen, they risk asking more than it's worth, when the store doesn't need crabs that badly, or maybe there was a news story that said they're unhealthy, and so the fisherman just gets crabs.

You could end up like that, some broke dude with crabs. It all depends. Are your works truly valuable? If so, are they truly worth your requirements to be able or willing to produce? If they are, then you'll be paid.

What won't happen, and never should, is you say, "I am going to produce music, and therefore I deserve to be paid!". Just as there's details to the supply side, so too is there to the demand. People need to actually need it.
Never said I did.

What I said was IF YOU USE MY MUSIC, PAY MY ASKING PRICE FOR IT. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY, FINE, BUT DON'T USE IT. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

Quote:
You say, "you don't NEED music". Why do you think people want music then? Do you think it's all just excess fluffy entertainment? I think people do NEED music, to survive, and for the world to turn as it does.

Right now there's a lady out there just diagnosed with cancer, and the only thing keeping her together is a special heartfelt song. After she wipes the tears, it will give her strength to make the dreaded call to tell her family.

Who cares if she "pirated" that song! All that matters is the production costs, including living expenses, be covered. But there is no requirement that they be covered by direct sales of individual songs as if they were crabs.
Sure there is. Who else is going to cover it, the good fairy?

Quote:
Even "piracy" distribution centers have costs, and deserved to be paid too. But by opposing them, you miss out on a great opportunity to team up and become part of the gains.

It's like people decades ago who opposed selling their records in stores, using the popular model, because it was "selling out". They missed out, just like people who oppose this one do today.
Balderdash!

Quote:
We don't have to buy your product to support you and be your friend. Because, it doesn't have to be a product. You can keep calling your records crabs, and trying to sell them as such, but I don't have to believe it.
Yes, you do - if you take my product without my permission you are not my friend. Becauser, you see, it'sMY product. Not yours. You can do whatever you want with yours.

Quote:
Why does it have to be a debate, with opposition? I'm not going to pay to download your song, if you have one. Why is that so difficult to accept? I have money, and will pay in ways that make sense. You'll still eat.
If you have money, pay your way. Don't steal. I can understand a starving man stealing bread. I can't understand, support, or condone a well heeled rich kid who has money and a snotty attitude stealing just because he feels entitled to do whatever he feels like and take anything he thinks he can get away with.

Don't you understand the concept of doing what is right? Or is it all about "me, me, me"? Because that's what you're communicating.

What "pay in ways that make sense" are you talking about? You're almost certainly never going to have a chance to see me play live unless you live close to me because I'm not likely to be able to afford to tour your region. And even if I did, money from touring goes on tour expenses, there's hardly anything left over unless you're a major act. Usually touring COSTS money, it doesn't earn money. But you've never toured so you don't have a frickken clue.

Quote:
Maybe. Or maybe the issue is the old model was built on this risk factor, where the labels didn't really know how to find what people actually wanted, so had to play this game to maximize chances of hitting the lottery.
When you let the label go with what they "know" what people want you end up with endless copies of Jay-Z, The Black Eyed Peas, and Brittney Spears.

Quote:
With the fishermen, they have a good product from the start. They know that an Alaskan King Crab is going to be in demand. They know where it is, and how to find it. They just have to do the work, and they will be paid.

But with music, who knows what people will want. You can find a big crab and everyone go "Ewwwww, that's terrible". What? Well, how do you make a business based on that? It doesn't work, when you don't even know what to sell.
But I DO know what to sell. I play songs for people and watch how they respond. I take tracks to my local bar and play them over the jukebox line input and watch how people react.

I'm not some young kid in a bedroom.

Quote:
So maybe we've got all these 90%-ers, the people involved in the production of rotting crabmeat no one wants. They bought big boats, risked their lives to go out into the seas, having to learn and spend in the process, to make music.

Then people are like, "We're not buying that crap!", and they're screwed, because MUSIC IS NOT CRABS so they can't eat what they got. Then it's not about understanding, it's just the fact that a lot of people are screwed.

That sucks. But maybe once people understand that, they won't feel so bad when they go into debt producing what no one wants. Maybe it needs to be reversed, where instead of record companies give contracts, listeners do.
Under the traditional system, before your friends leeched all the development money out of the business, record companies had A&R departments that employed local stringers in most urban areas. These were mostly young, enthusiastic fans who received credentials that were good to get them into most clubs and backstage areas and maybe a little money. Their job was to go out looking for talent and to report back to the company. That way the labels could find out what was hot in what market.

Quote:
Maybe some amateur artists submit demos to the public, where everyone can hear and vote. Then they invest in them, with pledges to cover production and living costs for the artist, and the whole system.

Then, when the pledges reach the threshold, it all activates, everyone gets paid, and there is a final result free for download. That way, all the losers of the system don't lose much, and there's no big loans involved.

It's all paid for at the time of production, and instead of labels guessing who will sell, the people buy BEFORE it's produced. Then they get their free music, the chain of people involved in making it get paid, everyone's happy.
Yes, we've been all over crowdsourcing in the Amanda Palmer thread. It works great if, like Palmer, you're already famous. Not so much if you're not. Kickstarter only shows successful and pending projects on their site; they hide all the ones that don't make their goal. And a lot of the time people contribute money to their own project so they can make the goal and collect whatever money people did pledge. The model is way over hyped.

Quote:
Is that really so stupid or impossible? Must everyone just keep insisting upon the same old broken view? Can't you consider something like this, because maybe, I'm not just some evil pirate idiot kid with no clue?
Do you honestly think we haven't thought of any of this stuff?

That "same old broken view" WORKS except when gangs of thieves rip off the product. It's been 13 years since Napster and NOT ONE of these bright boy "alternate models" or "new paradigms" has showed any sign of working. A few established stars have gone off on their own and established independent production companies. Big Deal - artists have done that since Dean Martin started Reprise Records in the '60s. It's the same old model wearing new makeup.

The fact is that it's BUSINESS, and business really only works one way.

Quote:
If you're one of the artists whose demos won't be liked, then you have no personal interest in accepting a system like that. You just want what'd get YOU paid, without care for anything else. Then grumpily keep moaning about piracy.
Actually those are the only people who favor a noncommercial system. Because they know they can't cut it in the real business.

Quote:
But you could still be involved. If only 10 people want your music, fine, go with it. If you could get $25 investment from each to fund some production, that's $250. That's not enough to live, but if they'd pay it every 3 months?

That's like $80/month to play with some bedroom gear and make some music that 10 people actually really care about enough to make a special effort to keep you producing. You'd need another job, so what? Sounds like a good gig.
You go play with your bedroom gear. Have fun. But you can't make the kind of records that I do with bedroom gear. And you damn sure can't do it without experience.
Old 31st August 2012
  #55
Lives for gear
 
mowmow's Avatar
I have never bought a lots of albums in the past but I buy some songs if they interest me strong enough.
I can't seems to find good produced songs or albums these days.
I used listen to the FM radio all the time when I was young and there were tons of good music back then.
I check Internet radio recently but top 40 music don't interest me so much compare to when I was young.
So part of reason is simply there aren't good music produced enough to make people interested to buy. Too many of them sounds too similar and they won't stand out from the rest.
Old 31st August 2012
  #56
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamon View Post
..
I'm really not confused about the difference between the material and information recorded on it. I understand where you're coming from. There's just other models, and I was trying to share one.
...
Err... that's not a 'model', that is called begging.

How insulting can you be?
Old 31st August 2012
  #57
Lives for gear
 
jrhager84's Avatar
 

This guy really is too much. Is he like this in other threads?
Old 31st August 2012
  #58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamon View Post
There's a difference between wanting to listen to something, and being willing to pay to listen to it.
yes, it's called consequences.
Old 31st August 2012
  #59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamon View Post
rack gear, I was with you in reflecting on the amazingness of it all, until you slammed me into a brick wall with the ending about how SALES should've increased.
absolutely and without a doubt.

the promise of the internet is size and scale

in 1999 in the USA there were probably 10 thousand retail points of sale for physical music, tower, sam goody, target, walmart, etc.

at the time they were selling $20 dollar physical discs - much of the overhead due to physical packaging, manufacturing, shipping and stocking fees.

these physical retail locations had all the problems of supply side inventory management - a band would be on tour, and no stock would be in that market, a song would be played on the radio and the album would quickly be out of stock, etc. a tv show or commercial features a song and suddenly there is demand, but no availability.

these supply side inventory issues combined with limited points of sale were a massive problem for the record industry.

digital distribution has none of these problems

today someone can walk from their living room to their computer (or it may be on their lap) to order the latest hot song, featured in Gossip Girl. Or not even, they can buy the song/album on their iphone while watching the tv show or in a movie theater or at a club or concert.

so today in 2012 there are an estimated 500 million* retail points of sale for prerecorded music via itunes alone.
Apple iTunes News: 500 Million Active Users, New Bebo Deal, and iPhone Requires iTunes Account - hypebot

just stop and think about this for a second... we went from 10 thousand points of sale to 500 Million points of sale in less than a decade and removed all of the supply side inventory issues... wow.

the promise, size and scale of the internet should have seen sales of pre-recorded music increase, massively...

there is frequent argument made that if music cost less, it would sell more... well, we now have 99 cent songs and 9.99 albums and sales have dropped by half in a decade...

so the industry adapted by:
1) removing inventory problems
2) making music instantly available
3) allowing for songs to be sold individually at a price never before possible and...
4) dropped the price of the album by half of the retail list price of a decade ago

all of this should be a net positive, not a net negative except for one very big thing... payment is now optional to everyone, and there are no consequences for not paying...
Old 31st August 2012
  #60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamon View Post
It is not stealing. It is not piracy. It is not a surprise, or the reason why you're going out of business, and your industry is losing relevance, etc.
no.

you are stealing human labor not songs. you simply don't understand or can't comprehend the very simple distinction between marginal costs and fixed costs.

you might do well to read this as well...

Quote:
the critical issue
by Tom

I agree that debates about property rights in the digital age are often distracted by faulty thinking about scarcity.

So let’s get the facts straight.

Unless a resource is scarce, assigning property rights to those who “produce” that resource is neither sensible nor harmful. After all, even if those who produce an "abundant" resource can exclude others from the portion of the abundant resource that they produce, the value of that right to exclude will be $0 absent scarcity.

But, as economists have long known, scarcity comes in two forms, ex ante, and ex post. Ex post scarcity means that a resource remains scarce even after it is produced and disseminated. Apples, wheat, and iPods exhibit ex post scarcity. Ex ante scarcity means that the resource is scarce until a means to produce and disseminate it is devised. Lighthouses and information goods (like innovations and expressive works) are examples of resources affected by ex ante scarcity.

Copyright and patent law respond to the problem of ex ante scarcity. Anyone who argues that information goods like innovations or expressive works are not "scarce" can validate their argument by producing the following:

-- copies of the films that will win Oscars in 2022,

-- a detailed description of a 100% effective cure for cancer,

and

-- a detailed description of a cheap, nonperishable malaria
vaccine.

In short, useful information is scarce, and it is expensive to create and produce, until the information in question is created and broadly disseminated.

So the problem with information goods is twofold.

First, we must convince someone to incur the expenses and risks involved in creating them.

Second, we must convince those who create valuable information goods that they should disseminate them broadly instead of carefully restricting access to those who are willing to pay (a lot) to obtain access.

An example may make this point more clearly. Dr. Stephen Covey studied business practices for many years and concluded that he could identify seven principles that would increase the odds that a businessperson would succeed.

For years, he profited from this information by acting as a consultant to Fortune 500 corporations and disclosing it only to the senior executives of corporations that paid his (very high) consulting fee.

Then, copyright laws convinced Covey that he could better exploit his hard-earned insights by publishing a book and making his insights available to anyone willing to pay $7 or visit a library. As a result, The Seven Principles of Highly Effective People was created and widely disseminated.

Saying that this particular work is no longer “scarce” because it has been created and widely disseminated dodges the real question: How do we encourage people like Covey to create information goods and broadly disseminate them?

For now, the best answer yet conceived to this question is “copyright”: We give authors like Covey an exclusive right to their expression of ideas so long as they are willing to allow the ideas expressed to pass immediately into the public domain. This bargain explains why you owe Covey nothing if you read a copy of his book at the library for free and then use his seven principles to build a multi-billion dollar business.

To oversimplify somewhat, copyrights are justified by the difference between the costs of creating an expressive work and the costs of copying an expressive work that has already been created, disseminated and become popular. The “abundance” of digital works that have been created and disseminated does not eliminate this justification. To the contrary, it strengthens it: As the marginal cost of reproducing a popular, disseminated work decreases, the justification for copyright increases.

So I agree: If humans already knew everything worth knowing and had already expressed everything worth saying, then it would make no sense to prevent zero-marginal-cost copying of innovations and works that had already been created and broadly disseminated.

But we don’t. That is why copyright and patent laws continue to make sense.

And that is why people who support those laws do understand “scarcity” in the digital age.

I hope this helps.
it's about money... a lot of advertising money...

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/...ercial-target/
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump