Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Doonesbury

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 3:17:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days'
Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say?

Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth.

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

More about : doonesbury

Anonymous
February 25, 2005 3:17:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days'
> Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say?
>
> Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth.
>
> http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html
>
> --


It's an intresting concept that Thudpucker is putting out. I'd like to
see the investment vs. return numbers for Reuban Stutter, and Kelly
Clarkson before making a call on the future of recorded music.

I've already heard that the LOw-Fi aspects and popularity of MP3s are
killing the R&D budgets at recording equipment manufacters
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 3:17:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

All intellectual property should be free, huh - try selling that to
the software industry. Registered marks, trademarks, copyrights, etc.
are all alive and well, it would seem, except for the music business.
People who insist that these things should be free are rationalizing
criminal behavior and encouraging theft. Plain and simple.

A different business model for the record industry is one thing, but
don't think all the blame lies with so-called 'greedy' label execs.
Artists and management pushing for ever escalating advances haven't
helped. Go back and study what has actually happened in the industry
in the '70's and '80's.

But, trying to suppress property rights is just plain communistic and
shouldn't be allowed to happen in this country. Free enterprise does
NOT mean that you can steal something that belongs to someone else
without paying for it.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 3:17:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

nmm wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>>Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days'
>>Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say?
>>
>>Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth.
>>
>>http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html
>>
>>--
>
>
>
> It's an intresting concept that Thudpucker is putting out. I'd like to
> see the investment vs. return numbers for Reuban Stutter, and Kelly
> Clarkson before making a call on the future of recorded music.
>
> I've already heard that the LOw-Fi aspects and popularity of MP3s are
> killing the R&D budgets at recording equipment manufacters
>

Many years ago I conceived an idea for a band that would not produce albums; the only way to hear
them would be at concerts and through bootleg recording people might make. I never got very far with
the concept because the bands I'd form wouldn't last and I am a recording engineer and love the process.

But at a more "local" level, many bands are doing just this. They didn't and don't have the money to
make recordings so the only way to hear them is to "experience" them live. You have to go see them.

The whole Thudpucker thing is really nothing new. We talked about the dynamic of how the record
labels were (and continue) ripping off artists. This conversation never ends. Sinead O'Connor was
quite vocal about the cost of production vs. the royalties paid to musicians being so completely out
of balance that she threatened to walk away. I haven't heard much from her after the whole Pope
thing years back, so I suppose in some way or another she may be sticking to her principles, maybe
even doing her stuff independently. Don't know.

Anyway, at the core of this argument is the fact that the bands that are stubborn enough and keep
going, if they have anything at all to offer, will generally succeed in having a career -- short or
long -- at a national/international level. The weeding out takes place automatically. That the
record labels have their own agenda, in my opinion, that in a way they are dictating what we are
going to like, what we will listen to, and for how long, is not so far fetched when you turn on the
radio and listen to what's being played. Do people who have an appreciation for music actually
listen to that stuff?? I wonder...

--fletch
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 4:01:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>Wasn't (or isn't) the whole purpose of touring to promote the record?
>I've always assumed that the real revenue came from CD sales and
touring
>was there as part of the record company's marketing campaign.

before records, musicians toured, edison came and the rest is being
digitized.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 4:14:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Call me crazy, but I'm not even sure I totally believe in copyright
laws. I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas or
intangible things like chord progressions or voicings in a specific song
or arrangement. Music is so derivative anyway I feel noone can claim
the complete right of ownership to a recording or composition because so
much in any recording or composition is stolen from hundreds of other
recordings or compositions.

I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching,
performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular
jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I
think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution
costs, but the royalties are a weird thing.

As far as audio engineers and technicians go, I think there will always
be a market, but maybe not like there was. But so what?

Maybe I'm too much of a socialist or something. I don't know. I'm
obviously opening myself up to criticism and haven't really 100% thought
through these ideas. Maybe I play too much classical music and
bluegrass to care about copyrights....

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq
(a musician, songwriter/composer, and audio technician)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days'
> Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say?
>
> Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth.
>
> http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 4:55:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 25 Feb 2005 12:17:14 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days'
>Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say?
>
>Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth.
>
>http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html

I'm down with Jimmy...

Al
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 5:05:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 25 Feb 2005 11:29:38 -0800, "will" <wpmusic@sio.midco.net> wrote:

different business model for the record industry is one thing, but
>don't think all the blame lies with so-called 'greedy' label execs.

CDs cost about 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are you
saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists?

Al
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 5:07:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:14:08 -0500, Trevor de Clercq
<declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote:

>Call me crazy, but I'm not even sure I totally believe in copyright
>laws. I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas or
>intangible things like chord progressions or voicings in a specific song
>or arrangement. Music is so derivative anyway I feel noone can claim
>the complete right of ownership to a recording or composition because so
>much in any recording or composition is stolen from hundreds of other
>recordings or compositions.

Absolutely correct. Even the great classical composers ripped off
folk melodies with abandon.

Al
February 25, 2005 5:25:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1109355256.7b4ddb60f579bb554367d58cc4d74907@teranews>,
declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu says...
> Call me crazy, but I'm not even sure I totally believe in copyright
> laws. I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas or
> intangible things like chord progressions or voicings in a specific song
> or arrangement. Music is so derivative anyway I feel noone can claim
> the complete right of ownership to a recording or composition because so
> much in any recording or composition is stolen from hundreds of other
> recordings or compositions.

Call me crazy, but I'm not sure I totally believe in patent laws.
I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas. Patents are
so derivitive anyway. Why should we pay to see a movie? Why should
we pay to rent a book? Directors can make their money off teaching,
performing(?), just like writers. Why isn't ciruit design free? It's
just artwork, right?

> I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching,
> performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular
> jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I
> think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution
> costs, but the royalties are a weird thing.

Musicians make music. TEACHERS teach, ENGINEERS engineer, etc.
Just because technology has made it easy to steal a musician's work
(and now film-makers as well) doesn't make it RIGHT! You're not
entitled to the fruits of my work just because it's easy to steal.
It's easy to steal oranges out of an orchard too, but it ain't right.
The thieves of this world are going to make us pay for EVERYTHING
on the net eventually, by their actions. People whose hard work is
ripped off aren't going to stand for this forever, so eventually
this Good Thing will come crashing to an expensive end.
--
---Michael (of APP)...
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/austinpowerplantmusic...
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 5:53:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1109351826k@trad...
>
> Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days'
> Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say?
>
> Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth.
>
> http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html

... that Trudeau is a communist? I already knew that.

Sean
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 8:09:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I know your post is intended to be "satirical" but I'm not sure I
believe in patents either. You are correct in saying patents are
derivative of many different sources than just the individual from whom
the idea came.

As far as books go, I can just go to the library and check them out for
free. It's great! Who "rents" books? I understand paying for a
service (like Netflix which sends you DVDs via the mail or going to a
movie where you sit down in an A/C'ed room to watch on the big screen),
but I can also go to the library and check out CDs, DVDs and VHS tapes
for free! And that is totally legal.

Also, a lot of people have software and circuit design for free. This
is the whole concept behind the open source movement.

And by the way, musicians teach. My family is entirely comprised of
musicians and artists, all of whom teach or have taught. Your argument
is akin to saying "those who can, do; those who can't, teach". Yet I
took guitar lessons for two years with a national champion flatpicker.
Obviously, he "could", but also taught. Some view teaching as an
integral part of fulfilling ones duty and role in society.

Tangible things can be stolen, but I'm not sure that you can "steal"
ideas or intangible things. It's like saying you're stealing the color
green. It doesn't make sense. And no, I don't think I'm entitled to
your work, but neither do I think you are solely entitled to it either.
I don't think anyone is entitled to ideas. Ideas are perhaps
un-entitleable (if that's a word).

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Michael wrote:
> In article <1109355256.7b4ddb60f579bb554367d58cc4d74907@teranews>,
> declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu says...
>
>>Call me crazy, but I'm not even sure I totally believe in copyright
>>laws. I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas or
>>intangible things like chord progressions or voicings in a specific song
>>or arrangement. Music is so derivative anyway I feel noone can claim
>>the complete right of ownership to a recording or composition because so
>>much in any recording or composition is stolen from hundreds of other
>>recordings or compositions.
>
>
> Call me crazy, but I'm not sure I totally believe in patent laws.
> I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas. Patents are
> so derivitive anyway. Why should we pay to see a movie? Why should
> we pay to rent a book? Directors can make their money off teaching,
> performing(?), just like writers. Why isn't ciruit design free? It's
> just artwork, right?
>
>
>>I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching,
>>performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular
>>jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I
>>think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution
>>costs, but the royalties are a weird thing.
>
>
> Musicians make music. TEACHERS teach, ENGINEERS engineer, etc.
> Just because technology has made it easy to steal a musician's work
> (and now film-makers as well) doesn't make it RIGHT! You're not
> entitled to the fruits of my work just because it's easy to steal.
> It's easy to steal oranges out of an orchard too, but it ain't right.
> The thieves of this world are going to make us pay for EVERYTHING
> on the net eventually, by their actions. People whose hard work is
> ripped off aren't going to stand for this forever, so eventually
> this Good Thing will come crashing to an expensive end.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 8:09:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:09:12 -0500, Trevor de Clercq
<declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote:

>As far as books go, I can just go to the library and check them out for
>free. It's great! Who "rents" books?

Not only that, the book's author doesn't have to sign away everything
to get published.

Al
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 8:54:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1109351826k@trad...
>
> Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days'
> Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say?
>
> Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth.
>
> http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html


I completely agree. In fact this is what was taught to me at audio school in
the more business related classes.

What people have to accept is that music/information is free now. It is! If
you think otherwise you are in complete denial. A business model has to be
created around musicians making a living from touring, not selling music.
Profit will come from ticket sales & T-Shirts/Merch.

--
-hev
remove "your opinion" to find me:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013
February 25, 2005 8:54:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Just caught those strips this morning; I'm really not sure what to
think.

The musician (in the sense that when I am playing I wish to be an
instrument of music) in me believes that what Thudpucker proposes would
give rise to a lot more *good* music.

However, doesn't his model leave not only the dinosaur
recording/publishing industry but also the pro audio industry (that's
US) out in the cold, starving to death?

I imagine that I could fairly easily find a gig playing again, but I
began concentrating more on engineering than musicking fifteen years
ago precisely because the life of a wandering minstrel had lost its
luster. Furthermore, are populations really going to be kinder to
traveling musicians than the last couple of generations of clubowners?

Hev suggests that music and information are the same thing; I'm not at
all sure I agree. I'll give you the point that music is free now but I
continue to question whether that's the way it *should* be.

Your mileage will, of course, vary--I'm not trying to start a war here,
just thinking out loud and bemoaning what appears to be my own
unemployability . . .

--Gordon Rice
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 8:54:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 25 Feb 2005 10:32:21 -0800, gordon@sigmasound.com wrote:

>I imagine that I could fairly easily find a gig playing again, but I
>began concentrating more on engineering than musicking fifteen years
>ago precisely because the life of a wandering minstrel had lost its
>luster. Furthermore, are populations really going to be kinder to
>traveling musicians than the last couple of generations of clubowners?

I doubt it, at least on the lower local levels, things are getting
worse. For example the number of rooms that showcased jazz in the US
has shrunk from 150 to about 45, this according to a sax player I
know.

In my personal experience the demand for live music at smaller events
is evaporating. And I hear from other players that this is not a
local problem, it's national. Young people now prefer DJs with dance
mixes over live music. There is no tradition of live music with these
people and they no longer hire bands for weddings or other functions,
they just hire a guy with a pile of CDs and a sound system.

Al
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:05:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play_on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 25 Feb 2005 11:29:38 -0800, "will" <wpmvsic@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>
> different bvsiness model for the record indvstry is one thing, bvt
>>don't think all the blame lies with so-called 'greedy' label execs.
>
>CDs cost abovt 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are yov
>saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists?

Well, last albvm I worked on was recorded in abovt eighty hovrs, with
thirty-fovr mvsicians in the band making vnion scale, three soloists
probably making better than vnion scale, a condvctor and a prodvcer.
Handel is dead so he didn't get paid, bvt the arrangers got paid some
mechanicals. I probably billed a good $12k, abovt half of which goes
for maintenance. The hall rental probably cost at least that.

And I'll be svrprised if more than 10,000 discs are sold.

I hate to say it bvt that comes to a lot more than sixty cents a disk.
I'd be svrprised if the label breaks even at $17. That's withovt even
thinking of the promotion cost (which in this case is probably limited
to a thovsand free disks and an ad in Gramophone).
--scott
--
"C'est vn Nagra. C'est svisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:05:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 25 Feb 2005 18:05:07 -0500, klvdge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>play_on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On 25 Feb 2005 11:29:38 -0800, "will" <wpmvsic@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>>
>> different bvsiness model for the record indvstry is one thing, bvt
>>>don't think all the blame lies with so-called 'greedy' label execs.
>>
>>CDs cost abovt 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are yov
>>saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists?
>
>Well, last albvm I worked on was recorded in abovt eighty hovrs, with
>thirty-fovr mvsicians in the band making vnion scale, three soloists
>probably making better than vnion scale, a condvctor and a prodvcer.
>Handel is dead so he didn't get paid, bvt the arrangers got paid some
>mechanicals. I probably billed a good $12k, abovt half of which goes
>for maintenance. The hall rental probably cost at least that.
>
>And I'll be svrprised if more than 10,000 discs are sold.
>
>I hate to say it bvt that comes to a lot more than sixty cents a disk.
>I'd be svrprised if the label breaks even at $17. That's withovt even
>thinking of the promotion cost (which in this case is probably limited
>to a thovsand free disks and an ad in Gramophone).
>--scott

Scott, will all dve respect, this is example is very far from a
typical modern recording.

Al
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:30:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1109356341.368405.186720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> gordon@sigmasound.com writes:

> The musician (in the sense that when I am playing I wish to be an
> instrument of music) in me believes that what Thudpucker proposes would
> give rise to a lot more *good* music.
>
> However, doesn't his model leave not only the dinosaur
> recording/publishing industry but also the pro audio industry (that's
> US) out in the cold, starving to death?

I think that there will always be a demand for recordings of music,
but that the demand will be created from hearing a live performance
rather than hype in magazines, MTV heavy rotation and multi-semi
tours. The coffee house singer who hawks his own CDs from the stage is
a good example. Sales are usually pretty brisk at these gigs, and at a
reasonable $12-15 makes a nice supplement to the modest take from the
door or however they're paid.

> I imagine that I could fairly easily find a gig playing again, but I
> began concentrating more on engineering than musicking fifteen years
> ago precisely because the life of a wandering minstrel had lost its
> luster.

Well, if musicians were busy gigging, they wouldn't have time to learn
how to be their own recording engineers and you could start recording
them for fair money.

> Furthermore, are populations really going to be kinder to
> traveling musicians than the last couple of generations of clubowners?

That's not really a fair question, but I'll bet they'll be kinder to
traveling musicians than to major record labels and big concert
promoters.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:43:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
>Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days'
>Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say?
>
>Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth.
>
>http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html

I am very ignorant when it comes to the music business. I head a local
band that's met with (what I consider) moderate success. We play gigs,
we sell (moderately priced) CDs and a little merchandise. I know
*nothing* about the "real" music business. With that being said:

Wasn't (or isn't) the whole purpose of touring to promote the record?
I've always assumed that the real revenue came from CD sales and touring
was there as part of the record company's marketing campaign.

Aren't the rising ticket costs, merchandising, etc., methods to
meliorate the cost of (and perhaps from) this particular aspect of
marketing?

Stu
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:43:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Stu Venable" <srvenable@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ZkKTd.5431$MY6.3@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> Wasn't (or isn't) the whole purpose of touring to promote the record?
> I've always assumed that the real revenue came from CD sales and touring
> was there as part of the record company's marketing campaign.

I expect we could see an era where CDs support the tour. The big returns
will always belong to the people with the money to buy marketing. We can
look forward to a golden age of huge carnival music festivals going every
week, all year, so the "superstars" can haul in enough cash to pay for more
layers of bling.

The smaller groups and singer/songwriters will feed off the overflow,
setting up secondary acts and putting out the hat. Swag tables as far as
the eye can see, like supermarkets of emblematic apparel, program books and
souvenire doodads.

I'm going to get a Green Day toaster.

dtk
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:43:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Stu Venable" <srvenable@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ZkKTd.5431$MY6.3@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Wasn't (or isn't) the whole purpose of touring to promote the record? I've
> always assumed that the real revenue came from CD sales and touring was
> there as part of the record company's marketing campaign.

Touring is how the band makes money, because they see so little from the
records after the record company subtracts the production costs. Of course
I'm talking about the bands that actually subsidize their own tours.

Sean
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:43:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:43:05 GMT, Stu Venable
<srvenable@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Mike Rivers wrote:
>>Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days'
>>Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say?
>>
>>Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth.
>>
>>http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html
>
>I am very ignorant when it comes to the music business. I head a local
>band that's met with (what I consider) moderate success. We play gigs,
>we sell (moderately priced) CDs and a little merchandise. I know
>*nothing* about the "real" music business. With that being said:
>
>Wasn't (or isn't) the whole purpose of touring to promote the record?

Not all. For many bands touring is making money. For example, ZZ Top
in the early part of their career were a top concert draw, more than
their record sales would suggest. They didn't have a top 40 hit until
much later. The Grateful Dead of course is another example of this.

>I've always assumed that the real revenue came from CD sales and touring
>was there as part of the record company's marketing campaign.

Most bands don't make much money on sales of recordings unless they
are superstars. Smaller acts are usually signed to deals that are
more advantageous to the record companies than to the act.

Al
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:43:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ZkKTd.5431$MY6.3@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> sturvNOSPAM@earthlink.net writes:

> I am very ignorant when it comes to the music business. I head a local
> band that's met with (what I consider) moderate success. We play gigs,
> we sell (moderately priced) CDs and a little merchandise. I know
> *nothing* about the "real" music business. With that being said:
>
> Wasn't (or isn't) the whole purpose of touring to promote the record?

That's the way it is in today's model. It used to be that the record
promoted the artist.

> Aren't the rising ticket costs, merchandising, etc., methods to
> meliorate the cost of (and perhaps from) this particular aspect of
> marketing?

I'm amazed at how affluent certain audiences are. The Birchmere (which
used to be a grubby restaurant that on Tuesday nights hosted The
Seldom Scene, arguably the top rated bluegrass band in the US for
no cover charge) recently held a four-songwriters show headlined by
Guy Clark. The ticket price for this show was $100, and they sold out
three nights, for a $180,000 take. In addition, there's a bar area
outside the music room, while they didn't charge a cover for that
room, they passed the hat and collected another $29,000. And it was
just four people on stage with their guitars. OK, the restaurant has
relocated twice, now seats 600 and has an excellent sound system (but
still has lousy food that you just about gotta come for if you want to
get a decent table) so it's classier than it used to be, but that's
mighty big bucks. I didn't go because I can't conceive of paying that
much money for a concert, but 1800 people did. I think there's some
potential here.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 9:43:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play_on wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:43:05 GMT, Stu Venable
> <srvenable@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Wasn't (or isn't) the whole purpose of touring to promote the record?
>
>
> Not all. For many bands touring is making money. For example, ZZ Top
> in the early part of their career were a top concert draw, more than
> their record sales would suggest. They didn't have a top 40 hit until
> much later. The Grateful Dead of course is another example of this.


Which is why the ClearChannel practice of locking down the radio promotion of concerts was such a scary development.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 10:05:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<gordon@sigmasound.com> wrote in message
news:1109356341.368405.186720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Just caught those strips this morning; I'm really not sure what to
> think.
>
> The musician (in the sense that when I am playing I wish to be an
> instrument of music) in me believes that what Thudpucker proposes would
> give rise to a lot more *good* music.
>
> However, doesn't his model leave not only the dinosaur
> recording/publishing industry but also the pro audio industry (that's
> US) out in the cold, starving to death?
>
> I imagine that I could fairly easily find a gig playing again, but I
> began concentrating more on engineering than musicking fifteen years
> ago precisely because the life of a wandering minstrel had lost its
> luster. Furthermore, are populations really going to be kinder to
> traveling musicians than the last couple of generations of clubowners?
>
> Hev suggests that music and information are the same thing; I'm not at
> all sure I agree. I'll give you the point that music is free now but I
> continue to question whether that's the way it *should* be.


Anything that can be digitized. Music, movies, books, software, etc. They
are all free at this point. The business model has to take shape around this
fact. I'm not about to begin debating about how it *should be*, but I am
here to tell you how it is *now*. The future just means higher bandwidth,
better more transparent data compression (or bandwidth allowing no
compression at all) and more users partaking.

I think people will still buy CD's
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1315039...). But I
think at this point it would be wise to start offering a T-Shirt for $15
that includes a link for a downloadable version of an album or what have
you.

--
-hev
remove "your opinion" to find me:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 10:49:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"will" <wpmusic@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:1109359778.207042.142660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> All intellectual property should be free, huh - try selling that to
> the software industry. Registered marks, trademarks, copyrights, etc.
> are all alive and well, it would seem, except for the music business.
> People who insist that these things should be free are rationalizing
> criminal behavior and encouraging theft. Plain and simple.

I'm only commenting on the current state of information sharing via the
internet. I do not view this as theft or criminal behavior and neither do
the millions of people using this new technology worldwide. What we need to
do is find a way to pay the creators of the information being exchanged. A
great way would be a royalty type system that tracks downloads like we have
for the radio.

Free information exchange is here to stay and growing everyday... are you
ready to accept this new way of life Will? Being stuck on the 'moral'
aspects of this phenomenon is just prolonging a workable solution.

--
-hev
remove "your opinion" to find me:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 10:56:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I still buy CDs. After I burn a copy from a friend or listen to some
mp3s and decide it's something worth spending money on.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Mike Rivers wrote:
> Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days'
> Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say?
>
> Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth.
>
> http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 11:12:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <588v11l80hpk2kmaliauas6oveom1m9hhr@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> CDs cost about 60 cents to make

Not everyone is like you, recording yourself with equipment that cost
you noting, and having a living income so you don't have to work while
you're making that 60 cent CD.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 11:12:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1109369352.0f72236bdc49efc13ff467b8af58918f@teranews> declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu writes:

> As far as books go, I can just go to the library and check them out for
> free. It's great! Who "rents" books?

But can you plug that book into your computer, make a copy of it, and
send it to someone else?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 11:43:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 25 Feb 2005 20:12:06 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <588v11l80hpk2kmaliauas6oveom1m9hhr@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> CDs cost about 60 cents to make
>
>Not everyone is like you, recording yourself with equipment that cost
>you noting,

??? My equipment was free???

and having a living income so you don't have to work while
>you're making that 60 cent CD.

I don't quit follow your logic Mike. FYI, what I live on would be
starvation wages for most people, I barely get by, OK? I'm a musician
for chrissake. Recording is a hobby for me more than a commercial
enterprise.

Al
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 11:52:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to
remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for
the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them
to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not
ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are." -Ayn Rand
http://www.working-minds.com/money.htm
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 11:58:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:588v11l80hpk2kmaliauas6oveom1m9hhr@4ax.com...
> On 25 Feb 2005 11:29:38 -0800, "will" <wpmusic@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>
> different business model for the record industry is one thing, but
> >don't think all the blame lies with so-called 'greedy' label execs.
>
> CDs cost about 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are you
> saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists?
>
> Al

You realize that a record store pays between 5 and 10 bucks for a CD, don't
you?

jb
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 11:58:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:58:07 -0500, "reddred"
<opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:588v11l80hpk2kmaliauas6oveom1m9hhr@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Feb 2005 11:29:38 -0800, "will" <wpmusic@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>>
>> different business model for the record industry is one thing, but
>> >don't think all the blame lies with so-called 'greedy' label execs.
>>
>> CDs cost about 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are you
>> saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists?
>>
>> Al
>
>You realize that a record store pays between 5 and 10 bucks for a CD, don't
>you?

I thought that was the point of this discussion -- that the middlemen
are fast becoming obsolete, thanks to the internet. What's your
point? Why should I support the record labels, distributors, and
stores over the artist, if I can buy directly from the artist?

Al
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:03:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Trevor de Clercq"

> I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching,
> performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular
> jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I
> think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution
> costs, but the royalties are a weird thing.

I have never once heard someone who makes a living making music, however
meager that living, say they would rather be working a day job.

And the funny thing is, all you guys that think there is no way to make
money distributing music, whether on CD's or over the internet, are just
plain wrong.

jb
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:06:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Trevor de Clercq" <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote in message
news:1109369904.1a047c680ceb604ebc07b305732591fc@teranews...
> Because it's worth spending money on art and music for no other reason
> than to create quality art and music. When did people start making
> music solely because they wanted to make money?

I think it was in ancient Greece. I know for sure it's been since the 12th
century or so.

jb
..
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:06:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:06:09 -0500, "reddred"
<opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Trevor de Clercq" <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote in message
>news:1109369904.1a047c680ceb604ebc07b305732591fc@teranews...
>> Because it's worth spending money on art and music for no other reason
>> than to create quality art and music. When did people start making
>> music solely because they wanted to make money?
>
>I think it was in ancient Greece. I know for sure it's been since the 12th
>century or so.
>
>jb

I'm not sure where you get your information, but until fairly recently
trained musicians made money only at the whim of their royal patrons,
or other supporters. In the case of indigenous people, music was and
is made as an integrated part of culture, not for profit.

Al
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:14:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"reddred" <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_6-dnQT6t_j4SoLfRVn-2A@adelphia.com...
>
> "Trevor de Clercq"
>
>> I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching,
>> performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular
>> jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I
>> think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution
>> costs, but the royalties are a weird thing.
>
> I have never once heard someone who makes a living making music, however
> meager that living, say they would rather be working a day job.

I've turned hobbies into dayjobs at least three times in my life. It never
fails to ruin the hobby for me. I'm pretty sure I'm going to keep music
just for fun. I am comforted that Vanilla Ice doesn't have to go get a real
job, though.

dtk
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:20:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Michael" <ra3035@NOTfreescale.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8945cce77ebf309896b3@news.freescale.net...
> In article <1109355256.7b4ddb60f579bb554367d58cc4d74907@teranews>,
> declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu says...
>> Call me crazy, but I'm not even sure I totally believe in copyright
>> laws. I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas or
>> intangible things like chord progressions or voicings in a specific song
>> or arrangement. Music is so derivative anyway I feel noone can claim
>> the complete right of ownership to a recording or composition because so
>> much in any recording or composition is stolen from hundreds of other
>> recordings or compositions.
>
> Call me crazy, but I'm not sure I totally believe in patent laws.
> I have conceptual problems with people "owning" ideas. Patents are
> so derivitive anyway. Why should we pay to see a movie? Why should
> we pay to rent a book? Directors can make their money off teaching,
> performing(?), just like writers. Why isn't ciruit design free? It's
> just artwork, right?
>
>> I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching,
>> performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular
>> jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I
>> think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution
>> costs, but the royalties are a weird thing.
>
> Musicians make music. TEACHERS teach, ENGINEERS engineer, etc.
> Just because technology has made it easy to steal a musician's work
> (and now film-makers as well) doesn't make it RIGHT!


Neither is the ridiculous way the music and film industry has made their
money. $19.99 for a CD?!? Please. The true crimes were commited AGAINST the
public in the first place. This is just sweet justice.

Times are changing Michael. You need to start looking at the internet like a
radio that people are "taping" things off of. Royalty might be the way of
the future on the internet. Why not just add a buck of tax to our internet
connections and then have a royalty based system for all art forms to enjoy?


--
-hev
remove "your opinion" to find me:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:20:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hev wrote:
> Are you sarcastically emphasizing why the industry needs to adapt or
die?
> Or are you really that stuck on the "morals" you are accustom with to
see
> what is happening?
> It is a revolution and the music industry dinosaurs don't get it!

"We have rudiments of reverence for the human body, but we consider as
nothing the rape of the human mind." -Eric Hoffer
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:32:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play_on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 25 Feb 2005 18:05:07 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>I'd be surprised if the label breaks even at $17. That's without even
>>thinking of the promotion cost (which in this case is probably limited
>>to a thousand free disks and an ad in Gramophone).
>
>Scott, will all due respect, this is example is very far from a
>typical modern recording.

Yes, and the REASON it's very far from a typical modern recording is
that it's almost completely unprofitable to do now.

It is getting to the point where you very seldom hear actual rock
albums tracked live because the budgets just don't extend to paying real
session musicians any more.

Yes, albums are being made for less and less money today, but that's
not a good thing and that's not helping the musicians in any way.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:32:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 25 Feb 2005 21:32:17 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>play_on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On 25 Feb 2005 18:05:07 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>I'd be surprised if the label breaks even at $17. That's without even
>>>thinking of the promotion cost (which in this case is probably limited
>>>to a thousand free disks and an ad in Gramophone).
>>
>>Scott, will all due respect, this is example is very far from a
>>typical modern recording.
>
>Yes, and the REASON it's very far from a typical modern recording is
>that it's almost completely unprofitable to do now.

That is one reason. The other reason is that it's no longer
neccessary to spend very much money to make a pop record.

>It is getting to the point where you very seldom hear actual rock
>albums tracked live because the budgets just don't extend to paying real
>session musicians any more.

But kids mostly don't want to hear that sound anymore anyway. They
like acts like Moby, who just uses midi and sampling to cut and paste
stuff together. Same thing with most R & B and Rap music.

>Yes, albums are being made for less and less money today, but that's
>not a good thing and that's not helping the musicians in any way.

Sure. However the people who are buying most of the recordings today
could care less if there are live musicians on the record... or even
if there are live musicians at the nightclub.

Al
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:48:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

These are actually Doonesbury Flash backs from a few years ago - I think
maybe they were written around the time of the Napster thing...

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com


"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1109351826k@trad...
>
> Doesn't anyone have anything to say about the last couple of days'
> Doonesbury strips? Or is there nothing more to say?
>
> Jimmy Thudpucker speaks the truth.
>
> http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:48:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <z2NTd.6983$Ba3.1183@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> dmainc@earthlink.net writes:

> These are actually Doonesbury Flash backs from a few years ago - I think
> maybe they were written around the time of the Napster thing...

They say "Flashback" but the strips have current dates. But so what?
Maybe a few years later more people understand what it's all about.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 1:45:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hev wrote:

> The future just means higher bandwidth,
> better more transparent data compression (or bandwidth allowing no
> compression at all) and more users partaking.

The future a little further down the road is not like that. It's much
more like the pre-petroleum past. You want bandwidth, or you want food?
Pick one.

--
ha
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 3:59:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gkvv119h8qunp74nbaabglgds5n6d5gb34@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:58:07 -0500, "reddred"
> <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:588v11l80hpk2kmaliauas6oveom1m9hhr@4ax.com...
> >> On 25 Feb 2005 11:29:38 -0800, "will" <wpmusic@sio.midco.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> different business model for the record industry is one thing, but
> >> >don't think all the blame lies with so-called 'greedy' label execs.
> >>
> >> CDs cost about 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are you
> >> saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists?
> >>
> >> Al
> >
> >You realize that a record store pays between 5 and 10 bucks for a CD,
don't
> >you?
>
> I thought that was the point of this discussion -- that the middlemen
> are fast becoming obsolete, thanks to the internet. What's your
> point? Why should I support the record labels, distributors, and
> stores over the artist, if I can buy directly from the artist?
>

If you can, by all means. There are direct sales from artists, and several
innovative distribution businesses that might become viable if people like
what they have to offer. But artists aren't exactly signing up with them in
droves.

The bulk of sales revenue for the music arms of the media companies still
comes from CD sales. Actually, almost all of it does. They need the best
buys and the walmarts and the record strores to distribute those products.
If they undercut on pricing with digital sales, the distributors become very
unhappy. So whatever the model, expect to see competitive pricing.

I was merely pointing out that you haven't had to pay 17 bucks for a cd in
quite some time. Bear in mind that Amazon is also part of what you are
talking about.

jb
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 4:07:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"play_on" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8pvv111jv5ojef2ptjcdkd5rbr1kac0s77@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:06:09 -0500, "reddred"
> <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Trevor de Clercq" <declerct@REMOVETHISnewschool.edu> wrote in message
> >news:1109369904.1a047c680ceb604ebc07b305732591fc@teranews...
> >> Because it's worth spending money on art and music for no other reason
> >> than to create quality art and music. When did people start making
> >> music solely because they wanted to make money?
> >
> >I think it was in ancient Greece. I know for sure it's been since the
12th
> >century or so.
> >
> >jb
>
> I'm not sure where you get your information, but until fairly recently
> trained musicians made money only at the whim of their royal patrons,
> or other supporters. In the case of indigenous people, music was and
> is made as an integrated part of culture, not for profit.
>

Bullshit. There has always been pop music and the musicians have always had
to sing for their supper. Just because you don't read about it in Beethoven
class doesn't mean it wasn't there. Go listen to Bernart de Ventadorn. You
will find many of the same themes and musical structures that are in the top
40 today.

In 'primitive' societies, music was also divided into sacred music ('high
art') and popular music. In west Africa, the popular musicians would travel
from town to town and trade their services for food or goods.

These things will never really change. Only occasionally in a society is
there an upper class wealthy enough to support 'fine art'. But the people's
demand for music is continuous.

jb
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 4:08:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"dt king" <pretendaddress@thoughtdog.com> wrote in message
news:U9mdnTziA9MDRoLfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
>
> "reddred" <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:_6-dnQT6t_j4SoLfRVn-2A@adelphia.com...
> >
> > "Trevor de Clercq"
> >
> >> I guess I feel musicians should make their money from teaching,
> >> performing, working as technicians/engineers, or just working regular
> >> jobs. So the "music industry" dying doesn't seem a big deal to me. I
> >> think CDs should cost money to pay for the packaging and distribution
> >> costs, but the royalties are a weird thing.
> >
> > I have never once heard someone who makes a living making music, however
> > meager that living, say they would rather be working a day job.
>
> I've turned hobbies into dayjobs at least three times in my life. It
never
> fails to ruin the hobby for me. I'm pretty sure I'm going to keep music
> just for fun. I am comforted that Vanilla Ice doesn't have to go get a
real
> job, though.
>

I've made similair decisions. I don't want to be so arrogant as to make
those decisions for other people, though.

jb
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 4:26:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play_on wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2005 16:38:48 -0800, "will" <wpmusic@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>
> >play_on wrote:

> This is precisely the kind of stuff that the internet is rendering
> obsolete. You no longer need conventional distribution, advertising
> and shipping if people can download your music.

Yes, we know how wonderfully profitable it is to have people download
your music and pay NOTHING for it. That hardly qualifies as a new
paradigm for sales - sales requires someone pays something for a
product. Perhaps you meant that this is a new paradigm for theft, but
then theivery is still the same as it ever was.

> >Otherwise, do it yourself and you pay for everything. But you won't
> >have the benefit of the marketing, distribution, promotion, product
> >availability, etc. that the label provides to the artist.
>
> Yep... but as I said before, this role of the record company becomes
> less and less crucial as the delivery of music via broadband becomes
> ascendant.
>
If you want to talk about iTunes or that type of model then there may
be hope, yet. Otherwise you have random third party people ripping
music off of CD's and posting it on the internet for anybody to steal.
That's a lot like stealing someone's laundry from the clothesline in
their backyard and taking it to the public square and posting a sign
that says 'Free Take Some'. Would that be legal in your 'property
should be free' world?
>
> It's already evolved into that, since many new artists voluntarily
> offer their music online for free.

If an artist wants to post THEIR OWN music and make it available for
free, fine. Just don't tell me that ANYBODY should be allowed to take
what they want from anybody with no consequence.

> I support artists I like too. But being an older guy I buy very few
> CDs by newer artists, and much of what I do buy is older music. I
> *really* resent having to pay high CD prices for old-time music by
> artists who are long dead.

Oh, and I suppose you also object to buying a book by Ernest Hemingway
and having to pay the bookseller full price for that? Since when did
anybody offer discounts because the writers or artist was dead? Or do
you think you're going to get an Andy Warhol work for less money
because he's dead? Grow up.

>
> I often illegally download new music that I hear a buzz about, just
to
> check it out. I'm not into paying $17 just to try something,
> especially when the odds are about 10 to 1 that I won't like it. If
I
> do like the music, then I might spend the money on it, but I'm not
> going to pay those kind of prices just to stay informed about current
> acts. But I'm not the problem. The problem is people like my
> stepdaughter who doesn't have the money to pay $17 for a CD just to
> hear the one song she likes... so she downloads the one song for free
> instead. Paying for music is a foreign concept for her. Kids like
> her are the challenge that the record companies have to face.
>
There are plenty of promotional sites around that allow you to hear
fairly long clips of new artists so that you can make that decision.
There's plenty of ways for people to hear new artists and it's getting
better. But, there's a huge difference between wanting to hear a new
artist before buying a CD and just stealing their music. BTW, I'm an
older guy, too, but I've also been the artist and the producer and the
publisher and the engineer and the record label , sometimes in multiple
capacities at different times in my career. But, from your posts I
suspect that you haven't been in the position of having money taken out
of YOUR pocket by the theiving behavior you support. Otherwise I don't
think you'd be so quick to support stealing.

Your new paradigm seems to be: I can steal from you and as long as I
don't suffer any economic consequences it's perfectly acceptable to me.
Pickpockets, con men and ordinary thieves have used just that paradigm
since time immemorial, Bucko. Go sell your Brooklyn Bridge to someone
else.

By the way, when I was a kid I saved up money until I had enough to buy
that new album. You might have done the same thing, if you're an older
guy. I didn't feel that I had the RIGHT to have things that I couldn't
afford, no matter how much I may have wanted them. A lot of kids today
have this chip on their shoulder - they have this attitude that they're
ENTITLED to have things that they can't afford or can't handle. Yeah,
it's a new day, baby.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 9:09:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Dave Martin" wrote:

> These are actually Doonesbury Flash backs from a few years ago

Gary Trudeau injured his drawing arm, so the strip's in reruns until he
heals up.

--
Jonathan Roberts * guitar, keyboards, vocals * North River Preservation
----------------------------------------------
To reach me reverse: moc(dot)xobop(at)ggestran
    • 1 / 13
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!