The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
UnNatural Perfection (and the end of rock)
Old 18th November 2009
  #241
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post
For someone like me who is content with staying home and creating records and music with friends and adding gear when needed with only the occassional live gig/performance it's really a wonderful idea. I haven't researched the specifics on how to do this yet, but if I was too put ANY effort into trying to make an income with music, this would be my way.
Get a website and put your music online, get a paypal account and ask for support. Voila. Think about a coockie (special content for supporters?).
Old 18th November 2009
  #242
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boody View Post
Get a website and put your music online, get a paypal account and ask for support. Voila. Think about a coockie (special content for supporters?).

That's the idea, I'm wondering about taxes? I mean, if it's a donation, will/can Uncle Sam come knocking later?

Cheers,
Steelyfan
Old 18th November 2009
  #243
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boody View Post
What physical product? We make sound captured as software. Sure, you can put it on a disc, but the product isn't the disc. People will pay for services, like providing them with music they like. It's still capitalism, sure, we all got to eat and nobody wants music tax or a government deciding what we should listen to. But service driven, not product driven. You pay me for the service I provide to you; music. Not: you pay me for a product that you cannot own, you just get a license to play it (cd is a bad dongle but the booklet is the coockie, i-tunes mp3 is a license to play. No coockie).
The disc is inexorably part of the product when it is.
Get it? It's in how it is presented, always has been, you make colored vinyl albums, picture discs, special inserts, special section on the CD that can be accessed by computer that links you to the webpage for submitting comments, ratings, the way to participate in what comes next, etc. and the audience will NEVER own intellectual property, they can not suddenly become the creator of something they did not create because they say so. It's illegal too and for god reason. If they could, if it wasn't illegal, countries would have an easier time waging economic war on each other and destroying other countries' economies in a day. Destroying families, industries, governments etc. IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. You gotta "what if" any thing you try BEFORE you try it.
The scenario I just described has just happened.

Also, I don't like the idea of a cookie either, why not be honest enough to just ask them what hey want. Invisibly sneaking around behind their back without their conscious knowledge is only a means to tempt them with things they may not be able or ready to handle. THAT is evil in my book.
Old 18th November 2009
  #244
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post

That's the idea, I'm wondering about taxes? I mean, if it's a donation, will/can Uncle Sam come knocking later?

Cheers,
Steelyfan
Uncle Sam will knock at the same time, unless you are a tax free charity. I don't mind paying a small tax for doing business in a country with laws that allow me to do so, especially if it's an honest business. Without the laws, you have no foundation to do business, only to get your stuff stolen without recourse for you unless you are prepared to successfully exact revenge. i.e. Piracy.
With Laws, and enforcement, you can usually safely do business and provide for your family. Don't believe me? Open up a store on the Ivory Coast selling gold. See if you can get a shipment, see if you live more than a week.
Old 18th November 2009
  #245
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by memphisindie View Post
Open up a store on the Ivory Coast selling gold. See if you can get a shipment, see if you live more than a week.
Now THAT would be piracy!

I'm wondering though.....even having you're website, paypal account, etc.. setup, can a company use your song for a commercial use because they donated $10 to your account? After reading the thread about liscensing, it's seems sketchy to even to post your stuff up on youtube for friends to hear without someone stealing your material saying they wrote it.
Old 18th November 2009
  #246
Anyone who thinks that the reason people steal music is because they think that the record companies are ripping off artists are fooling themselves. That's a convenient rationalization for people who want an excuse to steal music. Do you really think they didn't rip off Aimee Mann's Lost in Space after she went out on her own? Or Ani DiFranco? Of course they do. They steal stuff in proportion to its popularity more or less, and most of them wouldn't have the slightly clue or care whether the artist is independent or with a label. They aren't freedom fighters or idealistic. They are taking what they can because they can, and if some nice rationalizations are available to make that easier to do without feeling anything, then all the better.

So don't fool yourself into thinking that the solution to the problem is given them a better deal or bypassing the labels. It isn't going to make any difference to other than the remaining honest people who would already done the right thing.
Old 18th November 2009
  #247
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post
Now THAT would be piracy!

I'm wondering though.....even having you're website, paypal account, etc.. setup, can a company use your song for a commercial use because they donated $10 to your account? After reading the thread about liscensing, it's seems sketchy to even to post your stuff up on youtube for friends to hear without someone stealing your material saying they wrote it.
There's that "what if" that needed to be there, good thinkin man! nipped it in the bud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Anyone who thinks that the reason people steal music is because they think that the record companies are ripping off artists are fooling themselves. That's a convenient rationalization for people who want an excuse to steal music. Do you really think they didn't rip off Aimee Mann's Lost in Space after she went out on her own? Or Ani DiFranco? Of course they do. They steal stuff in proportion to its popularity more or less, and most of them wouldn't have the slightly clue or care whether the artist is independent or with a label. They aren't freedom fighters or idealistic. They are taking what they can because they can, and if some nice rationalizations are available to make that easier to do without feeling anything, then all the better.

So don't fool yourself into thinking that the solution to the problem is given them a better deal or bypassing the labels. It isn't going to make any difference to other than the remaining honest people who would already done the right thing.
Dang straight.
Old 18th November 2009
  #248
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
]
So don't fool yourself into thinking that the solution to the problem is given them a better deal or bypassing the labels. It isn't going to make any difference to other than the remaining honest people who would already done the right thing.
Okay, but cd sales are down, people have problems keeping their business rolling, record companies are in trouble... something is failing here. What's a good solution according to you?
Old 18th November 2009
  #249
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Packaging, musical and audio quality need to improve and the price needs to go up. The same crap only cheaper is not an answer.

Why on Earth would anybody buy an album they weren't going to treasure and listen to many many times? Streaming is just another form of elevator music that really should be free. It's about value.
Old 18th November 2009
  #250
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Packaging, musical and audio quality need to improve and the price needs to go up. The same crap only cheaper is not an answer.

Why on Earth would anybody buy an album they weren't going to treasure and listen to many many times? Streaming is just another form of elevator music that really should be free. It's about value.
No, it should be just like MUZAK, subscription service for elevators.
Ha ha. seriously.
I agree with the rest, make it scarce and jack it up, but, make it so that you can find it, just not necessarily afford it. Put in a code that destroys computers so it can't be streamed (without notice), then begin regular enforcement and prosecution. Piracy will disappear, then, put a tariff on Chinese manufactured gear. Or, don't make it available via the web.
Old 18th November 2009
  #251
Quote:
Originally Posted by boody View Post
Okay, but cd sales are down, people have problems keeping their business rolling, record companies are in trouble... something is failing here. What's a good solution according to you?
As I've said before, there is no *good* solution. Capitalism isn't some fad that we can toss aside and come up wiht something just as good as. It's a proven system that serves us very well, which has been worked out slowly and painfully for centuries, though of course it can be abused. It's a very well designed feedback system that rewards those who serve the needs of the public and punishes those that don't. Once that system breaks down, and people start just ignoring the capitalist contract, then all bets are off. The consumer gives up his ability to decide what is good and bad because he's not voting with his dollars, and the seller has no way to compete with his own product available for free (and the better he makes his product the more people will take it for free.) It's a lose, lose situation that will not work.

If we don't either get people to have a conscience (not likely) or find some technical means to get around it (not likely), then the only thing left is to stop selling music. That implies that you either get out of the business or you use music to sell something else, which in turn implies that you are no longer a musician or in the music business, any more than movie theaters are in the movie business (they are in the consessions business actually.)

Or, you become a musical manual laborer and tour until your health gives out at which point you get to die poor while millions of people (potentially) enjoy your music every day. If you get a large enough following you could get into the ad selling business perhaps. But even that's iffy when people will just block the ads or go get the music elsewhere, making your ad space fairly worthless.

It all just breaks down when the capitalist contract is thrown into the mud and pissed on, which is what has happened. I can't see any good way out of it, or really any moderately ok way out of it. I'm just damn glad I was too introverted to play in front of people after a while, and went the software route. And I feel for people who actually followed through on their musical dreams just to have them slowly eroded by large scale ethical and moral failure of consumers (which is what is failing.)
Old 18th November 2009
  #252
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by memphisindie View Post
Or, don't make it available via the web.
That's one way to bring the excitement of collecting again, the mystery of wondering what it'll sound like, what's in the sleeve, is there STUDIO SHOTS!! inside the sleeve. What do these people LOOK like??

But you want it to get to people too.
???
Old 18th November 2009
  #253
Lives for gear
 
feck's Avatar
I keep imagining the top wagon wheel makers of the early 1900's having this discussion - "if we just make the wagon wheels more aesthetically pleasing, people will keep buying them", "no, wagon wheels are too cheap, people don't think they are quality anymore", "we just have to make people see the VALUE in our wheels". All upon the advent of the tire. What if the whole concept of paying for an entire industry (and one that is notoriously full of fat cats, corrupt executives, and infantile egomaniac superstars at that) to do nothing to earn money other than make plastic CD's and digital 4 minute soundbytes is coming to an end? Again, I am just thinking aloud here, but doesn't it seem that the industry is so trifling and greed-based overall (at least to the perception of much of the public) that the rebellion against paying said people to continue their "vacation-like" lifestyle of rockstardom is rooted in anger? To be honest with you, when I see some of the people these days who are extremely successful in the entertainment business, I quite often think that they need to be humbled a good bit. And what better way to do that than to abstain from giving them your hard earned money for what is more often than not a vapid product anyhow? As a professional in the music business, I of course enjoy making my living this way. But at what point do we all stop and see what a greed based corrupt machine the "corporation" has become, and decide it is better to go down with the ship than to keep sailing with a bunch of pirates? I am not saying we are definitely at that point. Just throwing some thoughts out there.
Old 18th November 2009
  #254
The wagon wheel or horse and buggy thing always comes up, but it's not a useful comparison. They become obsolete because a better PRODUCT become available, not because people started stealing them. If the wagon wheel industry went out of business because people were stealing them, then the tire industry wouldn't have been created because no one would have taken the risk to try it, because they'd have known that people would steal those, too.

As to the fat cat thing, that's just silliness. Every successful large company out there has any number of people at the top who are making a lot more than you. Is anyone out arguing that we should be able to steal from Walmart? No, because they know they can't get away with it. People want to act like the music labels are somehow hugely weathy so that they can justify stealing form them, when the music labels pale in comparison to the wealth of many other companies.

People on this forum act like Steve Jobs is some sort of demi-God, when it's got more money thanp robably anyone running any of the labels, and got it by being a very big dick to a lot of people and doing some pretty nasty stuff to the people who worked for him. But of course they can't steal iPods, so there's nothing to be gained by demonizing him.

Quote:
And what better way to do that than to abstain from giving them your hard earned money for what is more often than not a vapid product anyhow?
That's fine. That's how capitlism is SUPPOSED to work. But that's not what's happening. When you steal it, you are giving very mixed signals. You are saying that the product has high value to you, but you become the one who is doing wrong, who has given up the moral high ground, not the person you might think is being too high and mighty, but who is getting his money through completely legal and long recognized means.
Old 18th November 2009
  #255
Lives for gear
 
feck's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
The wagon wheel or horse and buggy thing always comes up, but it's not a useful comparison. They become obsolete because a better PRODUCT become available, not because people started stealing them.
But as I wrote in an earlier post, in many cases it seems multimedia is what is extincting music - people spend their entertainment dollars on more interactive art - movies, television, video games. There is, after all, a finite amount of entertainment dollars the average person has. The impact a song has on me when paired with a great scene in a movie in many ways is a "better" product as compared to by itself - the audio combined with a stimulating visual in this case would be the better product as compared to a 2 dimensional separate audio recording.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
to the fat cat thing, that's just silliness. Every successful large company out there has any number of people at the top who are making a lot more than you.
In the example of the music business, everyone on this forum knows and many have posted about the fact that the major labels (which ARE the record business to the majority of laymans out there) are completely heads-up-their-asses ignorant about how to foster and build creativity. Which is very different from many successful companies. Steve Jobs, to use your example (Apple) comes up with innovative, useful products time and time again. And the record labels come up with what? Lawsuits against moms whose kids have pirated music. The music business runs on its' own paradigms and therefore is worth assessing independently of other businesses, not in the lump of "every successful large company out there" as you suggest here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
That's fine. That's how capitlism is SUPPOSED to work. But that's not what's happening. When you steal it, you are giving very mixed signals. You are saying that the product has high value to you
First of all, capitalism (in its' true definition) is a very complex scenario, so I will not go into that. However, I don't agree with the statement that when someone steals something it infers a high value judgment on their part. On the contrary - it infers a medium (at best) value judgment in the case of music, as it is so easy for most kids to steal these days. It is most likely more often than not an afterthought, more akin to picking up a magazine at a doctor's office because it is there and so are you, not because you have been waiting to read it. If we were talking about the theft of music in the physical sense (walking into a record store and running out with a record) I could agree with you, but these days, thanks to torrents and limewire etc. the process is one mouse click. I don't see that lending a high value perception to the music overall.
Old 18th November 2009
  #256
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

It seems radiohead has it figured out.

They got started with a label, became huge, quit the label and directed all their fans to the donation site. Now, everyone knows where to get their music from, and it's a 100% cut for them now that the CORP. are out of the equation. They tour, sell LP's!! and t-shirts at the shows, go home, rest, take a vacation, start a new albulm.......repeat.

Even when they get their own jet , I'll help by buying ice for their drinks when they still produce lp's and make great music. If you've got the fanbase already......why would someone do it anyother way?
Old 18th November 2009
  #257
Quote:
Originally Posted by feck View Post
But as I wrote in an earlier post, in many cases it seems multimedia is what is extincting music - people spend their entertainment dollars on more interactive art - movies, television, video games. There is, after all, a finite amount of entertainment dollars the average person has. The impact a song has on me when paired with a great scene in a movie in many ways is a "better" product as compared to by itself - the audio combined with a stimulating visual in this case would be the better product as compared to a 2 dimensional separate audio recording.
It's not 'extincting' music (is that verb?) The problem with the current situation is that the company that has the stealable product automatically loses to the company with the unstealable (or far less conveniently stealable) product. So the company with the stealable product gets an unfair boost in sales because the consumer doesn't have to make the decision whether to buy it or the (less) stealable product. They can just steal the stealable product and have more left over for the (less) stealable product. And then of course people can just say, oh well, people just don't appreciate the stealable product, when in fact they are stealing it in vast quantities, which, even with the ease with which it's done, is a time consuming process that they wouldn't do it if they didn't value it.

Quote:
In the example of the music business, everyone on this forum knows and many have posted about the fact that the major labels (which ARE the record business to the majority of laymans out there) are completely heads-up-their-asses ignorant about how to foster and build creativity. Which is very different from many successful companies.

Steve Jobs, to use your example (Apple) comes up with innovative, useful products time and time again. And the record labels come up with what? Lawsuits against moms whose kids have pirated music. The music business runs on its' own paradigms and therefore is worth assessing independently of other businesses, not in the lump of "every successful large company out there" as you suggest here.
The music business was not suffering until people started stealing it. Once people started stealing it, then it became of course fashionable to say that the music business is completely incompetent, despite the fact that whatever changes have occured probably had mostly already occured well before the downloaded started.

Obviously they aren't perfect, nor are other companies. But other companies don't have to deal with the fact that everything they make is openly available for free.

Apple is well known to have been so incompetently run that it barely survived. And even in the depth of that incompetence, they were still treated like some kind of gift to mankind. No one was arguing that they should be allowed to be destroyed by theft.

Quote:
First of all, capitalism (in its' true definition) is a very complex scenario, so I will not go into that. However, I don't agree with the statement that when someone steals something it infers a high value judgment on their part. On the contrary - it infers a medium (at best) value judgment in the case of music, as it is so easy for most kids to steal these days.
If you steal a pen, that's a casual theft. But when a billion pens a month get stolen, that's not casual theft. That's people stealing something that they obvious want. People don't steal ten mgazines from a dentists office every day and then carry around a device that allows them to select articles from those magazines to listen to while they drive or job or work.

Clearly music is still highly valued by people, and arguing otherwise is just, IMO, another rationalization for theft. It has no value so what's the big deal if anyone steals it. It's circular logic.
Old 18th November 2009
  #258
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Capitalism isn't some fad that we can toss aside and come up wiht something just as good as. It's a proven system that serves us very well, which has been worked out slowly and painfully for centuries, though of course it can be abused.
What's up with the capitalism stuff? I am thinking about other ways to make money. I try to figure out what people want to pay for. That's all capitalism to me

Every attempt to copy protect audio has failed. Miserably. Sony's cd protection on cds that prevented it to play on a computer was a disaster. While 'pirates' figured out how to bypass it with the stroke of a marker, the good folks that didn't own a cd player (which were many) and depended on their computer to play a cd were screwed. Meanwhile the music made it to the p2p instantly.

I don't care about the pirates/thieves/greedy folks. I don't believe everybody is one. I'm trying to find a way for people to support what they like and giving them something in return. Good music. A good feeling. Why you think people buy music at i-tunes while they can download it for free with any peer-2-peer program? They WANT to buy it.

So, here's my quest. I make music and hope people will like it. I know people stop buying cds because the system is outdated. i-tunes is one way. Google is making a lot of money with a service driven business. I think we can learn from that. For software companies that future is inevitable. And we are partly in the software business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Packaging, musical and audio quality need to improve and the price needs to go up. The same crap only cheaper is not an answer.

Why on Earth would anybody buy an album they weren't going to treasure and listen to many many times? Streaming is just another form of elevator music that really should be free. It's about value.
People stop buying cds and raising the prices will save it? You think a bigger coockie (packaging) will change their mind? You think audio quality will make them walk with a discman again? Somehow I don't think quality alone is going to save it and neither is bigger packaging for a product people won't buy.

I know a scary lot of people who don't have a hifi set. Even musicians. They do have an i-pod player. Or an i-phone
Old 18th November 2009
  #259
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Gee, everybody said that hardcover books were obsolete a few years ago. Then Harry Potter proved them to be absolutely wrong.

The real question is what exactly IS good enough? Obviously most of what people are releasing today isn't good enough. This issue isn't about technology.
Old 18th November 2009
  #260
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post
It seems radiohead has it figured out.

They got started with a label, became huge, quit the label and directed all their fans to the donation site. Now, everyone knows where to get their music from, and it's a 100% cut for them now that the CORP. are out of the equation. They tour, sell LP's!! and t-shirts at the shows, go home, rest, take a vacation, start a new albulm.......repeat.

Even when they get their own jet , I'll help by buying ice for their drinks when they still produce lp's and make great music. If you've got the fanbase already......why would someone do it anyother way?
But the contradiction is there in your post. How did they get huge? They got huge through the system that people are now saying is meaningless and just rips off artists. But every large (and very wealthy in many cases) artist that we know of came through that system.

BTW, Radiohead's sales are not THAT great. And probably the first times they did it they would have sold more just on the uniqueness factor than would be the case otherwise. It might sound like a really big deal if you sell $5M (for example) of an album. But, if you look at the size of the organization that is required to run a successful large act, and the fact that you now have to front all the money yourself, that's not much money. And if you have a stinker that doesn't sell next time, or after the newness of the approach wears off and peole just go back to almost all stealing it, you have no sugar daddy to fall back on. You are now the man.
Old 18th November 2009
  #261
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boody View Post
...I know a scary lot of people who don't have a hifi set. Even musicians...
What exciting new music is there to play on one?

Software sells all hardware. "Free" downloads are what sold people i-pods. Better recordings are required to sell hi fi sets. Better hi fi sets sell better sounding records.

Got to get rid of the "one size fits all" generic mentality about music. That's what's choking the industry.
Old 18th November 2009
  #262
Quote:
Google is making a lot of money with a service driven business. I think we can learn from that. For software companies that future is inevitable. And we are partly in the software business.
The key there is service based. Music isn't a service, it's a product. How can you sell a product with a service based model? You have to come back to Google every time you want to do a new search. Once you download a song you have it. Unless you are going to get out of the music business and sell something else, in which case you aren't saving the music business you are doing something else, I don't see how that's going to work.
Old 18th November 2009
  #263
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
That is actually my point. I just refuse to call them imperfections or mistakes because they aren't.
Ah finally. I am in some forums often where people work a lot with samples and most of them think that the deviations done by real instrument musicians in terms of time and pitch would be the same as "imperfections". With the same mindset they think randomisation of midi data would be "humanisation". Actually I think they have missed one of the biggest parts of music making but I gave up preaching.
Old 18th November 2009
  #264
Lives for gear
 
feck's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Obviously most of what people are releasing today isn't good enough. This issue isn't about technology.
I couldn't disagree more with your first statement. This statement assumes that people are using individually formed quality-based judgments which are leading to them to the decision to steal rather than buy. Personally, I don't know a single person who has ever said to me that they stole a record because it wasn't "good enough" to buy. They steal it because it is easy to do, number one. They steal it because the price of physical records has stayed relatively consistent over the last 20 years compared to the amount of money required to actually make it, which is common knowledge, and leads to animosity and disdain on the part of the consumer. They steal it because Steve Albini's article that has been floating around the web for years breaking down how a band that sells 500,000 records is still in debt to the label makes them realize that they are not paying the artist when they buy a CD at the local store, they are paying the massive bureaucratic organization built around the artists since the 1950's to keep running it's outdated model of art and commerce homogenization. Blaming the quality of what is released is the easy way out, and a tragic minimization of the large picture - not the intrinsic quality of what is released, but whether and how the public is supposed to make judgments on what is released on an individual basis. With music education down in schools, the sensationalizing of the rock star persona, the "music business" has become little more than a political system - a popularity contest based on anything other than what the talking head actually has to say, but rather how the talking head looks and how recognizable the talking heads' name is.
Old 18th November 2009
  #265
Quote:
They steal it because the price of physical records has stayed relatively consistent over the last 20 years compared to the amount of money required to actually make it, which is common knowledge, and leads to animosity and disdain on the part of the consumer
This continues to be stated though it is not remotely true. The price of a CD today is a fraction of what it was when it was released. If the new price in 85 was, say $15, then the price now, if they'd just tracked inflation, would be more like $35. But it's not. It's actually more like $12 or less. So, in fact, it's about 3x times less expensive. But of course no one who is looking for an excuse to steal music is going to take the time to work that out. Meanwhile, almost everything else has tracked with inflation, but no one is using that as an excuse to raid the local super market.
Old 18th November 2009
  #266
Lives for gear
 
feck's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
This continues to be stated though it is not remotely true. The price of a CD today is a fraction of what it was when it was released. If the new price in 85 was, say $15, then the price now, if they'd just tracked inflation, would be more like $35. But it's not. It's actually more like $12 or less. So, in fact, it's about 3x times less expensive. But of course no one who is looking for an excuse to steal music is going to take the time to work that out. Meanwhile, almost everything else has tracked with inflation, but no one is using that as an excuse to raid the local super market.
A CD at Tower Records or Virgin Megastore the last time I was in either (3 or 4 years ago) was $18.99. Plus 10% sales tax. That's $21. A cassette tape (the last one I bought was in the early 90's) was $9.99. With 5% sales tax. With the inflation rate, that is extremely close. Furthermore, iTunes keeps over 60% of revenues the last I checked per song. How much of that gets funneled down to the artist? Pennies. When that is common knowledge, it is no surprise that the public perception is that when they are stealing music, they are stealing it from the megacorporation, not the fledgling band. Which of course gets into a very different, deeper discussion which veers quite off the path of the original topic. And as far as raiding the local super market, if you look at many countries around the world in the last few years, you will see that this is exactly what tens of thousands have had to do in order to attempt to keep up with inflation and hyper-inflation. Luckily we haven't had to do that here (yet).
Old 18th November 2009
  #267
krs
Lives for gear
 
krs's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
What exciting new music is there to play on one?

Software sells all hardware. "Free" downloads are what sold people i-pods. Better recordings are required to sell hi fi sets. Better hi fi sets sell better sounding records.

Got to get rid of the "one size fits all" generic mentality about music. That's what's choking the industry.
Old 19th November 2009
  #268
If you chose to buy CDs at the most expensive place possible, don't blame the record labels for that. If there's 10% sales tax, don't blame record labels for that. If you want to compare a crappy cassette that would last 6 months probably with a high fidelity digital format in order to try to make out like you aren't wrong, don't blame the labels for that. If iTunes keeps 60% of the sales price, what does that have to do with the labels? Why isn't Apple the evil one?
Old 19th November 2009
  #269
Lives for gear
 
feck's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
If you chose to buy CDs at the most expensive place possible, don't blame the record labels for that.
This discussion isn't just about record labels, it is about the selling of music. Both stores I mentioned were massive retailers of music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
If there's 10% sales tax, don't blame record labels for that.
Again, this needs to be looked at as one big scenario - how much is the bottom line to the average consumer? Considering that there are 8 million of them in NYC and another 4 million in Chicago, I would say that the taxes added to the product matters very much to very many people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
If you want to compare a crappy cassette that would last 6 months probably with a high fidelity digital format in order to try to make out like you aren't wrong, don't blame the labels for that.
Hey now, cassettes are crappy? Those are all I could afford when I was a kid growing up. Don't rain on my parade solely because they were portable, I could take them around to friends' houses to skateboard to, and they were cheap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
If iTunes keeps 60% of the sales price, what does that have to do with the labels? Why isn't Apple the evil one?
At this point, Apple is a record label. Again, the big picture is what the cost and value perception is to the average music buying public. All factors must be considered. And using "evil" as a term doesn't help anything. The business will try to do any and everything it can to survive using its' in-place models, as we have seen. I am questioning something more than the individual models, rather the product behind the models, upon which the models are built.
Old 19th November 2009
  #270
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
What exciting new music is there to play on one?

Software sells all hardware. "Free" downloads are what sold people i-pods. Better recordings are required to sell hi fi sets. Better hi fi sets sell better sounding records.

Got to get rid of the "one size fits all" generic mentality about music. That's what's choking the industry.
The thing is constantly on, hardly a moment without some music. Good music (classics) is listened to etc etc. It's just convenience over quality. What about all the great recordings that were made? People don't buy hi fi sets for them. Don't they sound good?

You cannot compare a hardware book to a cd. Books can be taken to places without electricity and enhance your imagination, you enjoy them at your own pace and without ruining your eyes on a crappy display.

Agree with you on the last statement though
πŸ“ Reply
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
πŸ–¨οΈ Show Printable Version
βœ‰οΈ Email this Page
πŸ” Search thread
♾️ Similar Threads
πŸŽ™οΈ View mentioned gear