picky Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Interesting concept! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picky Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picky Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Sorry for the accidental empty posts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted April 7, 2004 Author Share Posted April 7, 2004 ---------------- On 4/7/2004 2:46:04 PM stan krajewski wrote: Today's television commercials are filled with yesterday's music because it's music, not noise. ---------------- Hmmmm... and you wouldn't happen to have been born between 1946 and 1964? Babyboomers with disposable income usually share your opinion, and the point picky was trying to make was that advertisers feel the need to cater that crowd almost exclusively. This is the same reason the record labels are re-releasing more and more box sets and less new material... it's cheaper to produce and the short-term profits are greater. You may note that picky-picky is an exception to the rule, being a boomer himself. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebes Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 I'm a boomer. Remember the "One Eyed Purple Peeper Eater"? How about "bubblegum" music? How about that treacle from the Beetles "I want to Hold Your Hand" recorded at the same time as the Animals are singing about a certain House in New Orleans and Them is recording "Here Comes the Night" Perhaps not the most prosiac examples available, but they'll suffice. The point is the airwaves have always been saturated with junk, and gems. In the late 60' and 70's the gems outbattled the junk. Why because the times they were a changing. For a brief time the imperative was for yhe best not the worst. The recording companies went along for the buck, the drugs and the broads. Remember "free love"? Anybody associated with Janis, or Bob or Jimmie had a ticket to ride. There was convergance of talent with a willigness to publish. That's gone. It was an abberation. Get over it. Has anybody ever heard of a struggling recording industry executive. Their focues has changed they have kids in the burbs and 6000 sq foot houses. They peddle it. People buy it. Radio is a dismal sinkhole of the bland and the flavor d'jure. What HASN'T changed is that we will always be blessed by musicians whose talent outweighs their greed, whose need to be heard outweighs their egos and whose need to express themselves ooverarches their need to conform. There are ways to do it. You know them. Go and find these musicians and enjoy and celebrate what they bring to us. Remember that we all enjoy Klipsch as a wonderfull medium to bring us the wonders of our artists, new or old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan krajewski Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Yeah, thats it! The music industry is constantly burying talent like the Beatles who could make them billions and instead are fostering bland music and talentless musicians in an industry that is going down the tubes. Makes sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picky Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 -------------------------------------------------------- formica wrote: You may note that picky-picky is an exception to the rule, being a boomer himself. Rob --------------------------------------------------------- Thanks, Rob! thebes: Yeah it is interesting that we've not heard of many executives from just about any industry these days that is actually hurting, except for those who have gotten caught with their filthy, little hands in the "cookie jar". And, how are they punished? By being given a huge "golden parachute" severance package worth millions. I don't think I will ever understand that concept. But, that's just me. Take Kmart for example: Just prior to their bankruptcy, their former CEO Chuck Conaway got caught padding his income "just a bit". So, much in fact that he built this 15,000 square foot mansion in Rochester Hills, Michigan just north of here. Naturally, after he was removed from his position, he sold his house. But, guess who had the money to buy it and is living there now? None other than Eminen (Marshall Mathers)! -Picky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebes Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Good one Picky and a great thread too. Compensation for the flavor of the moment (i.e. M&M) has always been out of whack when compared to the lesser known or selling groups/individuals. But while the scum often rises to the top those of us who appreciate music will go out of our way to support them. Re: corporate scumbags, I spent 8 years working on Capitol Hill and I am pleased to say I gave them fits on more than one occasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBB Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Hey! Thanks for reminding me Picky. Oh boy! My favorite Jesus Jones song AND Kmart commercial. Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history Right here, right now, there is no other place I want to be Right here, right now, watching the world wake up He he he . Like the man says. WAKE UP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v3spitfire Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 I just heard Rainbow's Man on the Silver Mountain" on a Coor's commercial. That's funny. I hear Moby on tv commercials and the cure on an HP commercial. Cure is not new, but not boomer music either. I've heard others as well. I find myself buying more used cd's than new. With people buying cds for 1-2 songs, they end up in the used bins quite a bit. I wonder how much that cuts out of the music companies' profits. Now sometimes 1/3 of the stores (non-mall) are dedicated to used cds. There should be no pitty for anyone in the record business, including the big artists. They're very quick to complain about big business and "the man". These artists are the epitimy of big business. They are the man. Pearl Jam complaining about ticket master?? (don't get me wrong, I do too, but in the end I still buy the tickets (not to pearl jam)!. Pearl Jam (and Metallica, U2,...) are big business. We don't feel sorry for the (banking, insurance, auto, name your industry) when they have hard times. WHy the music industry feels that if they're having a hard time due to there own policies, the govt should fix it is beyond me. People thought etoys.com was going to put an end to Toys R Us. Toys R Us didn't go to the govt and whine or attack their customers, they fought back. I turn over the soap box... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBB Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 If these people in the record business haven't learned their lesson after all their whining over the money they lost trying to make a fast buck in the 3D (Disco Disaster Decade) they can all eat cake.They still haven't learned to invest in talented artists instead of worrying about if their electronic garbage music is being ripped or if Miss Spears got married or not.Give me a break. They've turned A&R into the Angles and Ripoff department. Phooey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible Nectar Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 "Pearl Jam complaining about ticket master?? (don't get me wrong, I do too, but in the end I still buy the tickets (not to pearl jam)!. Pearl Jam (and Metallica, U2,...) are big business. We don't feel sorry for the (banking, insurance, auto, name your industry) when they have hard times. WHy the music industry feels that if they're having a hard time due to there own policies, the govt should fix it is beyond me." It seems your ire at Pearl Jam is a bit misguided. Pearl Jam DID have the fans' best interests at heart when they took this action - trouble is, they took it to the wrong place. Pearl Jam wanted to sell concert tickets for prices that the fans could afford. Remember, at the time PJ took this to the Gov, the majority of thier fans were younger (less income). It was PJ's wishes to play shows for $25; when PJ found out that was not possible, they did some investigation of thier own, and found many hands in the till. It would have been easy for PJ to just say "hey, no problem - $50 is OK, we'll still sell it out, all is good." Instead, they found the concert industry dominated by a select few in charge, who dictate fees and prices. Biggest offender? TICKETMASTER. If you have bought tickets from TM recently, you'll find that the fees charged by TM is as high as 35% of the price of the ticket. All of a sudden, that $25 ticket becomes 35 to 40. That's not a "convenience fee", that's highway robbery. Buy 8 tickets, get charged $80-100 in "convenience fees". Even your investment broker doesn't charge you that kind of rate! Granted, TM must pay for the infrastructure to process the transactions and print tickets and so forth, but on the average transaction I have with TM (4 tickets usually), it runs about $50-60 in fees....and that's on 25-40 face value tickets. For Rolling Stones tickets, the fee was $16 EACH!! Pearl Jam sought to put a stop to this sort of price gouging, and ask TM to charge reasonable fees - or be allowed to sell the tickets themselves. The problem with PJ selling thier own tickets was the exclusive ticketing agreements between TM and the venues where the concerts take place (now mostly owned by Clear Channel, which also owns the biggest share of radio stations). PJ wanted to sell thier own tickets direct to the fans at reduced processing fees - but TM said no, because we have deals for our venues to exclusively ticket though TM. So PJ tried the next best thing they could - play non-TM ticketing contracted venues. Good luck!!! PJ had ALL kinds of problems doing this, because the places they could play were not really concert venues at all, and if they were suitable as such - they had no personnel experienced in putting on these kind of events. TM had nearly captured the entire market for themselves - having license to skim off of every dollar that moves through the ticketing/concert industry. Where PJ made it's mistake was this: they tried to get the Government to do thier bidding for them. "Please, Gov, get these people off our backs". Fat chance. There is a new threat to TM on the horizon. Enter Colorado's String Cheese Incident, who have taken another approach to the problem - sue thier a$$. SCI is in a unique position to do this, because they didn't have to suck on the teat of Clear Channel, TM, radio, etc. to get to the level of success they have. No TM/CC/record company/other megacorp attorney will be able to argue in court that "we made SCI", because SCI built the fanbase direct (by performing, internet based advertising, and word of mouth). The fans come to them for ticketing needs, making TM effectively worthless as an advertising medium (SCI fans KNOW where to get the tix from, and go to SCI's server first to get reduced fee tickets direct). TM generally gets the sales AFTER SCI has sold out of thier allotment (8% of the house), when SCI could sell the majority of tickets to the shows direct. SCI sued TM on the grounds of "tortious interference with prospective business advantage" - TM is interfering with SCI's ability to sell thier own product due to the "exclusive ticketing agreement" TM has with the venues - which are almost ALL TM venues. There's not many options for doing a US tour and still avoid TM venues - they have contracts with most of the venues in the US. In effect, Clear Channel (who owns most venues) and Ticketmaster (who has exclusive ticketing rights to events played in those venues) have told SCI that "you will run your action though us, or else". Sounds a bit like the Mob. I've read a quote, disputably accredited to Hunter S. Thompson, that says "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." Can't say for sure if HST said it or not, but it's sure the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckB Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 I have been reading this thread with some interest. I am quite sure my response to all this will be unpopular! While most if not all the charges levied here against the music business may be at least partially true, if not totally true, none of this negates the fact that downloading copyrighted music is nothing less than stealing. It takes money away from the artists, no matter how SMALL a percentage that may sometimes be. It takes money out of the pockets of the recording engineers and the arrangers and the session musicians. (Few people realize how much of what you hear in a recording has to do with the recording engineers and not the artists). It also removes the motivation for new talent to spend the time practicing and honing their craft. I am sure none of us here would be any less passionate about the companies we work for if they suddenly decided not to pay us for some of the days we work. (in essence stealing from us) Nor are we any less upset and pi**ed about having our car, money, stereo/HT equipment, dog, wife stolen. So although we may have an intense dislike for the music industry, the people who RUN the industry and the quality of the product they serve up, we have no right to STEAL the material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBB Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 Its been a long time since I owned a Rolls, I now drive a car with broken windows I Want a Cadillac, Want a Cadillac, Want a Cadillac Oooo yeah, Oooo yea, Oooo yeah, Oooo yea, Need a car loan, need a car loan, need a car loan I will never, ever , ever pay the loan on time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 ---------------- On 4/11/2004 9:21:20 AM ChuckB wrote: While most if not all the charges levied here against the music business may be at least partially true, if not totally true, none of this negates the fact that downloading copyrighted music is nothing less than stealing. ---------------- There is absolutly nothing in the law that says downloading music is "stealing". In fact, Canada has declared that downloading music is in fact legal! One can even argue in the U.S. that downloading music is not necessarily "wrong". I.E., I already have the music on vinyl, but want an electronic copy to burn to CD or use in an MP3 player for the car, but the only way to get it is to donwload it off of one of the file-sharing networks. That is perfectly legal and well within fair use rights. Does not sound like stealing to me, does it? Also, all of the lawsuits that have been filed are against people that have been uploading music to the file-sharing networks, not those that are just simply downloading. The uploading is considered "unauthorized distribution", not "stealing". Two entirely different things in the law. Also, this has been a "civil" matter, not a "criminal" matter. Theft is a criminal offense, but nobody has been charged with a crime here, yet. There are numerous links on the internet by various sites, including a Supreme Court ruling, that specifically says that "copyright infrignment is not theft". Now, I am all for giving proper credit and compensation to the artists that created the music that we all listen to and enjoy, but I will still use the file-sharing networks to sample the music before I spend my hard-earned cash on it. Nobody in this world will tell me how I am to spend my own money, and I should have the right to shop around for my music and try verious tracks out before spending my money on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted April 12, 2004 Author Share Posted April 12, 2004 Unfortunately Im a little too young to recall the public release of the Philips 4-track cassette... but werent all these points originally discussed back then? It seems to me recording off the radio poses similar arguments? Cassettes didnt kill the industry and neither will MP3s. Actually ---------------- On 4/11/2004 11:44:15 AM skonopa wrote: Also, all of the lawsuits that have been filed are against people that have been uploading music to the file-sharing networks, not those that are just simply downloading. The uploading is considered "unauthorized distribution", not "stealing". Two entirely different things in the law. ---------------- Yup, I skonopa is right... I guess that is the difference between the cassette and the P2P networks. Contrary to most peoples impressions of what the law suits are about, its actually about letting other people access to your tunes. Did you guys get wind of the online music stores have been faced with price hikes from the labels? Some new albums will now retail for about 40% higher if you download them from iTunes (with limited DRM use) versus purchasing the exact same thing on CD (with full rights)!! I just dont understand the drive to try to kill, rather than take advantage of new formats... BTW, in Canada we DO pay a tax on blank CDs, DVDs, cassettes, and hard-drive recorders to compensate possible lost artist revenues. sorry abot the unrelated points... just thought they may be of interest... Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 ---------------- On 4/11/2004 9:21:20 AM ChuckB wrote: It takes money away from the artists, no matter how SMALL a percentage that may sometimes be. It takes money out of the pockets of the recording engineers and the arrangers and the session musicians. (Few people realize how much of what you hear in a recording has to do with the recording engineers and not the artists). It also removes the motivation for new talent to spend the time practicing and honing their craft. ---------------- Actually, it doesn't take any money away from the artists. What happens is that a band gets signed for X amount of dollars and then depending on the arrangement, they get a small percentage of the X during recording stage (to live off of) and then they don't get the rest until the first 500-1000 or so albums have been sold (it depends on the contract). Once the band finishes their recording, they don't solely own their music anymore and they don't get paid any extra ever (again, this is contract dependant as very few artists get a percentage of every CD sold. Also, the artists have no distribution or advertising rights regarding any of their recordings. All the studio workers are paid per hour and usually get paid at the end of every week until the recording is done. The mastering process is usually done in another facility where all they do is master CDs all the time and so they just charge the record X amount for the mastering process. Where does the rest of the money go? Straight into the producer's hands. What does the producer do? Basically nothing. He is just a networking tool with a lot of money to lend to a band so that they can record and then takes all his money plus extra right back. The producer is the first person to get paid until he has covered what he's invested. He then networks with the RIAA and all sorts of other agencies to squeeze out every last cent of profit. All that said, it is actually to the artists' BENEFIT to spread their music over the internet in every method possible. The main source of income for a band is through live performances. It is the live scenario that an artist gets to truly reveal their artistic creativity ot lack thereof. But for live performances to be profitable, there has to be fans and for there to be fans a band has to be popular. The only way that is going to happen is if the most people possible hear their music. What better way to advertise than over the internet? In fact, there are a lot of artists that choose the P2P networks as their main avenue of advertising! Of course their producers and the RIAA hate them for this, but that's because the producers and RIAA don't make any money off it. The RIAA makes about $.10 per CD sold on average I think...I forget the amount, but that's a butt load of money when you add it all up. It's also really pathetic how much CDs sell for...it would cost an average consumer less than a dollar to make a single CD. Charge $2 and that's 100% profit. The mass market CDs probably cost around 10 cents to make, add on the 10 cent RIAA fee and we'll round it to a quarter. That's a 4000% profit margin! Granted, you have to subtract studio fees and all that, but after the first 500 or so albums, that's already paid for! I know that if CDs cost even $5, that I would be buying a lot more of them. Charge something like $3 and even more people would buy them. Heck, for $3 I'd even buy a whole album for just two or three good songs (as that's about the only number of good songs anymore). That's like $1/song for a lifetime of enjoyment...good bargain there. Another thing, the P2P networks aren't downloading programs...they're sharing programs. Yes I know, that sounds like a rationalization and if you don't use them the way they're supposed to work, they do become downloading programs. Nevertheless, it is law that there is nothing wrong with sharing copyrighted material as long as you're not making a profit in the process. When a file is shared over these networks, there is nothing of physical value being taken from the producers, artists, or even the RIAA. This is why it's not stealing. Though the RIAA likes to look at every single download as sale that was made, but no profit was made. This is skewed logic because the person downloading the music never had the intention of spending money on the song. If the song was worth buying, then the consumer would buy the song. Another thing that can be argued is that the copyright that a song gets is a copyright on the actual wave that is produced. An mp3 is an approximation of that wave and if you look at them in their wave forms, they are actually quite different. Yes, they are similar and they sound similar, but you could argue that an MP3 is a remix of the cd quality version and thus, the artist producing the MP3 can actually copyright the MP3! Because the waveform is not identical for 10 seconds (I think that's the limit, i forget), then it's not the same thing as the copyrighted CD and thus the RIAA can booger off. Well, it's time for me to rap these ramblings up, but there's more to come...when I feel so motivated. EDIT: I did want to comment on the recordable media tax... "BTW, in Canada we DO pay a tax on blank CDs, DVDs, cassettes, and hard-drive recorders to compensate possible lost artist revenues." Ironically, those taxes only apply to Media CDRs, Media DVDRs and Music Cassettes. If you buy a "regular data disc" then those taxes aren't applied. Also, the revenues from these taxes just further pad the pockets of the producers and recording companies...the artists never see any of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted April 12, 2004 Author Share Posted April 12, 2004 ---------------- On 4/12/2004 2:30:46 PM DrWho wrote: Ironically, those taxes only apply to Media CDRs, Media DVDRs and Music Cassettes. If you buy a "regular data disc" then those taxes aren't applied. Also, the revenues from these taxes just further pad the pockets of the producers and recording companies...the artists never see any of it. ---------------- Actually it applies to all media (at different rates) according to the approximate use for data vs- music. Here are a couple of excerpts from the Copyright Board's Private Copying 2003-2004 Decision ---------------- What are the new private copying levy rates set by the Board? For the period from January 1st, 2003 to December 31st, 2004, the Board certified the following levy rates: - Audio cassettes (of 40 minutes or more in length): 29¢ each - CD-R and CD-RW: 21¢ each - CD-R Audio, CD-RW Audio and MiniDisc: 77¢ each - For non-removable memory permanently embedded in a digital audio recorder: $2 for each recorder that can record no more than 1 Gb of data, $15 for each recorder that can record more than 1 Gb and no more than 10 Gbs of data, and $25 for each recorder that can record more than 10 Gbs of data. Who benefits from the levy? CPCC has been designated as the collecting body for the private copying levy. CPCC is also responsible for distributing the amounts generated by the levy to collective societies representing eligible authors, eligible performers and eligible makers. ---------------- I would agree that very few artists must actually see that money... once everyone else get their cut first. The link goes on to mention that they collected about 21million in 2001 and 28million in 2002... which is pretty substantial given the small Canadian market. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 just curious, are those candian numbers or american numbers? the article i have here (on paper...which im not about to retype) says it only applies to the "music" media...then again, the article is dated i think 1999.... anyways, just trying to keep current and keep me facts straight....i spit out most of these numbers from memory so it's hard to keep track (especially when things are constantly changing). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted April 14, 2004 Author Share Posted April 14, 2004 All those amounts are in Canadian funds... and your looking at about 75¢ to the Canadian $ right now. BTW, if they want to increase CD sales... I think theyd have to aim 10$cnd (7.50$US) for a regular album ... and between 3$cnd and 4$cnd for singles. This is in light of the DVDs retail prices which the majority sell for between 15$ to 20$cnd. Most record stores Ive been to recently have converted about half their floor space to movies now, and they provide very tough competition to audio CDs... esp since they are often priced lower. Note the we do pay less than 10$cnd for older unpopular movies while the hot new release will retail for 25$cnd. Im surprised the music industry numbers are as positive as they are given the bed they have made for themselves. Consumers (myself included) are dumb and continue to give them our money after being treated like a disposable commodity. Rob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.