Quantcast
UnNatural Perfection (and the end of rock) - Page 8 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
UnNatural Perfection (and the end of rock)
Old 17th November 2009 | Show parent
  #211
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➡️
But it's just crazy to act like Lady Gaga or Miley Cyrus isn't huge among young teens, and not because they are too stupid to realize that there are other things.
?? I think you're missing the point here Whilst Lady Gaga is huge among teens she's also huge among some serious grown ups. Whilst a lot of teens may like Lady Gaga, not all teens like Lady Gaga... generalizations... no facts.... fraud discussion
Old 17th November 2009 | Show parent
  #212
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The Bee Gee's songs were really badass. I never realized this until I heard a folkie sing "Stayin' Alive" with just a guitar.
Old 17th November 2009 | Show parent
  #213
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by boody ➡️
?? I think you're missing the point here Whilst Lady Gaga is huge among teens she's also huge among some serious grown ups. Whilst a lot of teens may like Lady Gaga, not all teens like Lady Gaga... generalizations... no facts.... fraud discussion
So, wait, I post lots of information about sales and web activity and age demographics and whatnot, but I'm the one not providing any facts?
Old 17th November 2009 | Show parent
  #214
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➡️
So, wait, I post lots of information about sales and web activity and age demographics and whatnot, but I'm the one not providing any facts?
sorry, was a too fast post so I might have come across blunt, didn't mean to. I see a lot of people shouting that the music they know is dead and the media is polluted with rubbish. Some may get that impression when they look at sales and commercial radio stations. Some may blame youth for that, or think that the youth doesn't care for good music. But I think that opinion is the same as standing on a square in the center of a big city where 40 years ago the good food could be found and stating there is no choice for food other then mcdonalds or burger king.

The places you used to look for great music have changed. To find it you'll have to look elsewhere: it's still there, it just moved. The problem is: where & how to find it, or if you are on the production site of things: how to get people to find it and how to earn a living while making 'good' music (however subjective that is).

btw: I love the beegees
Old 17th November 2009 | Show parent
  #215
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by boody ➡️
sorry, was a too fast post so I might have come across blunt, didn't mean to. I see a lot of people shouting that the music they know is dead and the media is polluted with rubbish. Some may get that impression when they look at sales and commercial radio stations. Some may blame youth for that, or think that the youth doesn't care for good music. But I think that opinion is the same as standing on a square in the center of a big city where 40 years ago the good food could be found and stating there is no choice for food other then mcdonalds or burger king.

The places you used to look for great music have changed. To find it you'll have to look elsewhere: it's still there, it just moved. The problem is: where & how to find it, or if you are on the production site of things: how to get people to find it and how to earn a living while making 'good' music (however subjective that is).

btw: I love the beegees
I'm not shouting those things at all. I've argued many times that there's lots of good stuff out there if you care to look for it, and I do. I'm just trying to make the point that the stuff that is popular now is popular, not because kids are ********, but because it's just their music. They DO like it. They may like some older stuff as well, but they do like Lady Gaga and Britney and Miley. The vast amount of discussion of them out there, and the large sales (in the face of the issues I pointed out above), proves that they are real forces in music today and that kids like them.
Old 17th November 2009 | Show parent
  #216
Lives for gear
 
FireMoon's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➡️
But Brittany and Miley sold theirs during a time when theft is more widespread than anyone could possibly have experienced back during Zep's heyday. We have the hard pirates still plus we now have a world of casual pirates. So I think tha tthe handicap still is far in the modern artist's favor, both on levels of theft and age distribution.

AND they are doing it at a time when there are far more competing interests as well. So, all around, I think that 85M means a lot more now than than back then.
But that's ignoring that. You didn't get any returns tall from something like 75% of the worlds sales territories, in terms of population.. You can sell 20 million units in Asia and not make an impression, in a genuinely meaningful manner culturally.. Don't for one minute assume that everyone outside of the west only buys ho*** gear. They grew up paying more than us for bootlegs, in real terms of their income.. When Britney hit big most people in Asia did not have access to on-line resources, same goes for much of eastern Europe..

Plus, as i said ..American record companies lie through their teeth about their level of sales... there' a link floating about that actually shows how many Thriller actually sold, as opposed to how many the record companies claim it sold.. the figure, in reality, is less than 50% of that claimed.. Zepplin have sold 250 million albums that we definitely know of, Britney has sold 200 million units.. a unit can be anything and often is, that the record company care to claim it is..
Old 17th November 2009 | Show parent
  #217
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireMoon ➡️
Plus, as i said ..American record companies lie through their teeth about their level of sales... there' a link floating about that actually shows how many Thriller actually sold, as opposed to how many the record companies claim it sold.. the figure, in reality, is less than 50% of that claimed.. Zepplin have sold 250 million albums that we definitely know of, Britney has sold 200 million units.. a unit can be anything and often is, that the record company care to claim it is..
I know for a fact that King of Pop was bought to Gold status before it was even released.
Old 17th November 2009 | Show parent
  #218
Lives for gear
 
FireMoon's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by memphisindie ➡️
I know for a fact that King of Pop was bought to Gold status before it was even released.
And the pre release sales of an album i was on back in 1980, on today's figures, would have debuted in the top 3 in Britain, not at number 27 as it did..

Plus gold albums use to be awarded, in Britain anyway, for 100,000 sales not 100,000 dollars worth, or 100,000 quids worth of sales as they are now. Plus record companies use to quote actual albums sold to the public NOT albums sold to distributors, as they often do now...
Old 17th November 2009 | Show parent
  #219
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➡️
They DO like it. They may like some older stuff as well, but they do like Lady Gaga and Britney and Miley. The vast amount of discussion of them out there, and the large sales (in the face of the issues I pointed out above), proves that they are real forces in music today and that kids like them.
In my youth that was Boney-M, Gumbay danceband and a horseload of other crap that dominated and polluted the air. Everyone has forgotten about them (or should have anyway ). Always been that way. Nothing new. The decrease of sale and the piracy and the so called death of this or that music is a totally other conversation. The business had changed. The movie is over, but there are still people staring at the screen shouting there's nothing on it (wow, I'm really good with crappy metaphors ).

We need another business model. Coming to think of it: songwriters are authors that own their intellectual offspring. People are buying recorded performances of that, so they can listen to, but not own, the music wherever they want (some drive 3 hours into the woods I just read These performances are now code and can be downloaded and copied without the necessity of hardware like a tape, vinyl or cd: it's becoming a pure software product. All the big software companies are heading to a service based business model. I don't have the answers, but I think I know where to look for them.
Old 17th November 2009 | Show parent
  #220
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by boody ➡️
The movie is over, but there are still people staring at the screen shouting there's nothing on it (wow, I'm really good with crappy metaphors ).
YES!!! You are THE MAN!!!!
Quote:
We need another business model. Coming to think of it: songwriters are authors that own their intellectual offspring. People are buying recorded performances of that, so they can listen to, but not own, the music wherever they want (some drive 3 hours into the woods I just read These performances are now code and can be downloaded and copied without the necessity of hardware like a tape, vinyl or cd: it's becoming a pure software product. All the big software companies are heading to a service based business model. I don't have the answers, but I think I know where to look for them.
I think that's where TACD is headed. Subscription.
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #221
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➡️
Actually, it might be the other way around. I had just cleaned out my cookies and browser history about an hour before. So it would have had no previous search information to tailor my search results. If you haven't, yours might be the search that's being personalized.
Okay, I believe you...I thought maybe you were secretly googling for Gaga because you are ga-ga for Gaga and you love her radio goo-goo, her radio ga-ga. (that's where she got her name! And some people think rock is dead...)

Where did you get those Google stats from?
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #222
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP11 ➡️
Okay, I believe you...I thought maybe you were secretly googling for Gaga because you are ga-ga for Gaga and you love her radio goo-goo, her radio ga-ga. (that's where she got her name! And some people think rock is dead...)

Where did you get those Google stats from?
Just do a search. The number of available hits for that search shows up on the search results page. It's not super-accurate perhaps. Some may lead to no longer existing pages. But when you are talking about tens of millions, a couple hundred thousand one way or another won't make that much difference.
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #223
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by memphisindie ➡️
I think that's where TACD is headed. Subscription.
Subscription is surely one of the ways to go. There are already a lot of filter based podcast programs like Pandora. Once they will ask a subscription fee and will pay artists for podcasting we're on a right track. But for that to really work the internet might loose some of it's precious freedom... loads of things to think about here...
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #224
Kush Audio
 
u b k's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by boody ➡️
But for that to really work the internet might loose some of it's precious freedom...

Freedom requires boundaries. thumbsup

Look, on Netflix I pay a monthly fee and can watch anything they have on their server. This is an insanely simple model and I hope/pray it becomes the model for music as well. The key is the (inevitable) disappearance of local storage in lieu of remote streaming of everything: files, docs, apps, media, whatever. It's a greener model as well.

I'd pay $20 a month to have access to all the music out there. I might even pay more.

Hell, people pay in excess of $100-200 a month for access to hundreds of crapass cable channels... surely something similar can be accomplished with music.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #225
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
And you're right, there would actually be people who would subscribe to The Bee Gee's Channel! I know two!
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #226
Lives for gear
 
MixedSignals's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by memphisindie ➡️
YES!!! You are THE MAN!!!!


I think that's where TACD is headed. Subscription.
It seems as a general rule, the young only survive to prove us wrong.
I have 20-something friends who dig vinyl, classic rock and old record players. As an artist in my latter 30's it just reassured me to stick with what i like to do, not to go chasing after rainbows. There's even a market for used tapes now. Thanks to the resurgence of electro in the 90's vinyl made a big comeback cause all the DJ's. So it must be frustrating for anyone to predict that 'if this happens' (music becomes instant and digital) thus and thus will occur...(physical art will be no longer.) How many people like my friend have that King Crimson Lp displayed like a piece of art on their wall? Im sure quite a few.
It's nice to have something to show off and brag about, something that can be ripped off or lusted after or handed down.
In the brain of a 21 year old, as soon as everyone stands in line at Mega Record mart with their barcodes, a crowd will arise that will consider that 'uncool' simply because it's common.
Things are expanding out, in all directions.
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #227
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k ➡️
Freedom requires boundaries. thumbsup

Look, on Netflix I pay a monthly fee and can watch anything they have on their server. This is an insanely simple model and I hope/pray it becomes the model for music as well. The key is the (inevitable) disappearance of local storage in lieu of remote streaming of everything: files, docs, apps, media, whatever. It's a greener model as well.

I'd pay $20 a month to have access to all the music out there. I might even pay more.

Hell, people pay in excess of $100-200 a month for access to hundreds of crapass cable channels... surely something similar can be accomplished with music.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
I doubt it. I think the cat is out of the bag and it ain't going back in.

I think the recording will become more and more a promotional tool to build a following for a band. Which means the only bands that will survive will be ones that fans can really dig there teeth into. A turntable hit will make little money.
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #228
Lives for gear
 
feck's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k ➡️
Look, on Netflix I pay a monthly fee and can watch anything they have on their server. This is an insanely simple model and I hope/pray it becomes the model for music as well.
.
What's next - are we just going to all pay a flat "entertainment tax" that will be split up amongst all of the artists out there so we can watch as many movies and listen to as much music as we want? Then the artists will have to rely on more companies like BMI/ASCAP to collect their money and (hopefully) pay it to them. Or some bureaucrats can dole the money out. Seems like a scary venture to me. Bulk paying to have access to a few good things and a ton of lousy ones seems like subsidy for the untalented. I see your point, and don't necessarily have any issues with the Netflix model, I am just thinking aloud of what the ramifications might be for this kind of a system with all commercial creative art. So, essentially I see the dilemma as -
1. People don't see the value in or want to spend money on music.
2. The solution is to try and give them a "bargain" for their money by giving them MORE of what they already don't want to pay for in hopes that their good ol' greed gland will kick in and take over their better judgment.

It seems to me that several things are generally missing from these discussions. The first of which is - what if music as a commodity is facing extinction? Music began as a public celebration in the streets and common areas. Another is the concept of the validity of art when commercially successful - or vice versa, the lack of quality art when commercially unsuccessful. Charts, categories, award shows, etc. all go further to selling something other than the music - the PERCEPTION of the music. Yet that is not only done every day, it is done more vigorously and more effectively than ever before. In fact one could perceive music as nothing more than a vehicle to deliver a persona and commercial/financial agenda. Branding. If that trend continues to define the layman's view of music, it is not surprising to me in the least that sooner rather than later people will stop seeing the purpose in spending their money on manufactured, 2 dimensional art in the days of videogames, movies, and 3 dimensional interactive art. Any thoughts?
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #229
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia ➡️
I think the recording will become more and more a promotional tool to build a following for a band. Which means the only bands that will survive will be ones that fans can really dig there teeth into. A turntable hit will make little money.
That's a second track we're on: your cd is your tool to get gigs and the product you sell to people who want to sponsor/support you by buying it. The word 'sponsor' or 'support' is important: people do value music and are willing to support you if you ask them the right way and if they're confident the money goes to the artist, not some sleazy record company. This is reality already for many bands.

A turntable hit won't make you much money. Your music underneath a big movie, tv show or commercial will. Track three.
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #230
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by feck ➡️
1. People don't see the value in or want to spend money on music.
2. The solution is to try and give them a "bargain" for their money by giving them MORE of what they already don't want to pay for in hopes that their good ol' greed gland will kick in and take over their better judgment.
1: people hear about the record companies screwing artists for more than 30 years. They don't care about the record companies. They do have affinity with the artist. But when they download music for free, they think they screw the record companies, not the artists. (which is partly true, but the artists of course pays the bill)
2: no, one of the solutions may be to give them a customizing filter tool they can subscribe to (like pandora, or lastfm in europe) where they can listen to music they know and search for new music that is related to the music they like. That makes them independent of the hated record companies (but of course at the mercy of pandora and the likes.... pandora's box.... scrary )

As for the rest of your post: every mailman, paper delivery boy, student, jogger etc etc has earphones in. i-pod is huge. Music as a product is not going away.
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #231
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by feck ➡️
In fact one could perceive music as nothing more than a vehicle to deliver a persona and commercial/financial agenda. Branding. If that trend continues to define the layman's view of music, it is not surprising to me in the least that sooner rather than later people will stop seeing the purpose in spending their money on manufactured, 2 dimensional art in the days of videogames, movies, and 3 dimensional interactive art. Any thoughts?
You do have a point in that making music for games etc is a good future proof way to make money. Track 4 already
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #232
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by feck ➡️
What's next - are we just going to all pay a flat "entertainment tax" that will be split up amongst all of the artists out there so we can watch as many movies and listen to as much music as we want?
Bulk paying to have access to a few good things and a ton of lousy ones seems like subsidy for the untalented
Damngood points!
Quote:
So, essentially I see the dilemma as -
1. People don't see the value in or want to spend money on music.
No people want music or Ipods wouldn't sell. They sell.
Quote:
2. The solution is to try and give them a "bargain" for their money by giving them MORE of what they already don't want to pay for in hopes that their good ol' greed gland will kick in and take over their better judgment.
Yaeh, another flawed system that won't work, designed by someone who would think it would work.
Quote:
It seems to me that several things are generally missing from these discussions.
Like a filtering tool to filter out what you don't want.
Quote:
The first of which is - what if music as a commodity is facing extinction?
Nope.
Quote:
Music began as a public celebration in the streets and common areas.
Maybe.
Quote:
Charts, categories, award shows, etc. all go further to selling something other than the music - the PERCEPTION of the music. In fact one could perceive music as nothing more than a vehicle to deliver a persona and commercial/financial agenda. If that trend continues to define the layman's view of music, sooner rather than later people will stop seeing the purpose in spending their money on manufactured, 2 dimensional art in the days of videogames, movies, and 3 dimensional interactive art. Any thoughts?
Correct, it has already begun in the late eighties as soon as they really kicked it into all aspects of any popular music.

But, let's add a"so what?" to the end of that and see what we can come up with.
A filtering tool like on your computer, to filter out what you don't want,
a web based page to ask for what you do want,
That way customers get what they want, and don't have to wade through waves of stuff that does not in any way appeal to their individual sensibilties.
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #233
Kush Audio
 
u b k's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by feck ➡️
2. The solution is to try and give them a "bargain" for their money by giving them MORE of what they already don't want to pay for in hopes that their good ol' greed gland will kick in and take over their better judgment.

That strikes me as a cynical interpretation of what's being proposed.

I see a subscription-based model for media as a pragmatic choice; it allows for the re-assertion of control over distribution, which (despite all the other bitching and moaning we get around here) is the SOLE reason the labels are in a difficult spot. If people had no choice but to pay for music, they would.

One thing nobody ever discusses here is the consequence of living in a culture that is obsessed with money, that is designed to keep the vast majority of its people and businesses in debt to a central authority while remaining always one or three paychecks away from insolvency, and where the dominant corporate landscape turns almost every human transaction into an economic one: a sale, an advertisement, a pitch, an angle, a zero-sum game. This creates a weary, guarded, jaded citizenry, always on the lookout for being sold to, always aware that if they want something it's going to cost and the mere suggestion that something be free, collectivized, or subsidized will be demonized and vilified.

I am completely unsurprised that in such a culture, people will take what they can get wherever they can get it. I do not advocate it, I do not support it, I do not think it's a healthy long-term strategy or response... but I understand it. Completely.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #234
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
People will pay money for the music that is worth paying money for. They know it's worth it if they're used to paying for it and being happy with the result...

Somewhat circular, but there it is.

'I paid for this' is a REALLY GOOD way of mentally sorting out the great music from all the other stuff out there which is crap. It's like a tipping point, a point of no return that's beyond simply 'this is worth my attention'. Mostly the problem is getting into people's attention, but there's levels beyond that.

If you're a commodity trying to meet a market need, good luck even counting on people's attention!
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #235
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k ➡️
That strikes me as a cynical interpretation of what's being proposed.

I see a subscription-based model for media as a pragmatic choice; it allows for the re-assertion of control over distribution, which (despite all the other bitching and moaning we get around here) is the SOLE reason the labels are in a difficult spot. If people had no choice but to pay for music, they would.

One thing nobody ever discusses here is the consequence of living in a culture that is obsessed with money, that is designed to keep the vast majority of its people and businesses in debt to a central authority while remaining always one or three paychecks away from insolvency, and where the dominant corporate landscape turns almost every human transaction into an economic one: a sale, an advertisement, a pitch, an angle, a zero-sum game. This creates a weary, guarded, jaded citizenry, always on the lookout for being sold to, always aware that if they want something it's going to cost and the mere suggestion that something be free, collectivized, or subsidized will be demonized and vilified.

I am completely unsurprised that in such a culture, people will take what they can get wherever they can get it. I do not advocate it, I do not support it, I do not think it's a healthy long-term strategy or response... but I understand it. Completely.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
Are you suggesting that there's a downside to capitalism? heh
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #236
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia ➡️
Are you suggesting that there's a downside to capitalism? heh
How dare he?

I think he brought up a point, so far, all the economic models and systems that ever hit the ground have in some way resembled "nature", If you can and it's good, you eat it.
But
NOTHING in nature comes with a thick candy shell and nothing inside.
I don't for a second go for the mutual exclusive thinking that ALL music now is crap, a polarized thought, There are instances where a subscription base will be good, for stuff like kanye, miley, the whole Disney crew, subscription is a great way, you get it cheap and they can make it cheap. Would have been good for Milli Vanilli too and all the lipsyncing crew.
Maybe there will have to be different systems for different stuff, but one thing is for sure, trying to come up with something on the backside of industry-wide catastrophic failure is stupid.
Shoulda had it all in place before this, it isn't like no one could se this coming, they just didn't want to hear it.
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #237
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k ➡️
I am completely unsurprised that in such a culture, people will take what they can get wherever they can get it. I do not advocate it, I do not support it, I do not think it's a healthy long-term strategy or response... but I understand it. Completely.
Yup And here is where we should try to turn things around. If people are aware of the fact that they are supporting other people who make music they like, the whole money thing can get another meaning. We need to put emphasis on support of artists, undone by the greedy attitude of unpersonal companies. Instead of 'pay or we'll sew you, pirates' it can be 'help us to create more music with better quality, fans'
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #238
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by boody ➡️
Yup And here is where we should try to turn things around. If people are aware of the fact that they are supporting other people who make music they like, the whole money thing can get another meaning. We need to put emphasis on support of artists, undone by the greedy attitude of unpersonal companies. Instead of 'pay or we'll sew you, pirates' it can be 'help us to create more music with better quality, fans'
OK, I'm laffing my butt off on that. There is never going to be an end to capitalism. Even in the Utopia of russian, Cuban, and Chinese Communism, it was just more capitalism for the few at the top. DON'T forget that.
The fans don't have a clue and shouldn't unless they are in the production side, they should be enjoying, if they aren't OUR SIDE is screwing up, BASIC BASIC BASIC.
If the majority of stuff only garners "mental attention" and doesn't garner MONETARY attention, so be it, It isn't good enough. That doesn't warrant a change in the industry to free or subscription based service only. That doesn't mean that fees should not be charged for sales of physical product.
Here's another extremely basic business principle for you that has been around forever:
If the product doesn't sell in physical form, enhance the physical form, if it still doesn't sell, look for why, if you find out it is theft, address the problem effectively.
If you find out you're just not that interesting, too bad, you're in the wrong segment of your market, Go to producing commercial jingles or subscription pop. That way at least you get payed, and people won't expect the good stuff that does garner monetary attention on the part of the consumer to end up cheapened in an advertisement.
That doesn't mean that you have to come up with some ridiculous ethos of some nebulous "new business model" that conspicuously NO ONE has been able to describe.
Enhance the CD ( art, functionality, link to filter search etc.), address the theft (TACD), there can ALSO be subscription based service for the stuff that isn't selling but don't ever expect to be payed in the billions for a substandard and shallow product that does not disturb the listener and prompt them to seek out and pay for it.
This whole thing has reached a fever pitch of ridiculous.
It's all being worked out, guarantee they'll screw it up and then have to go back in till we arrive at something that looks just like what was already here and some add-ons.
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #239
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by boody ➡️
Yup And here is where we should try to turn things around. If people are aware of the fact that they are supporting other people who make music they like, the whole money thing can get another meaning. We need to put emphasis on support of artists, undone by the greedy attitude of unpersonal companies. Instead of 'pay or we'll sew you, pirates' it can be 'help us to create more music with better quality, fans'

That's really where it's at, if you are touched by what an artist creates, folks should provide support and the means to allow them to continue creating, even if it's $1.00.

A friend and myself were talking, and we've decided (for us) that the donation concept (like Radiohead and others have done) is the best fit.
Instead of trying to sell cd's for $15 - $20 , why not just give the music away and let your audience tell YOU how much it means to them. To put a dollar amount on your work can almost devalue it. When a song or albulm you create really gets to someone, in the heat of an impassioned moment, might donate $100- $500 to you, because that's what they can afford, and it shows their appreciation for what you've accomplished and shared with THEM. Hustling $10 cd/s was never my thing.

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.
Old 18th November 2009 | Show parent
  #240
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by memphisindie ➡️
That doesn't mean that fees should not be charged for sales of physical product.
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).
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 55 views: 32213
Avatar for IM WHO YOU THINK
IM WHO YOU THINK 13th October 2020
replies: 15929 views: 1533018
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 181618
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace 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…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump