Doonesbury

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
607 answers Last reply
More about doonesbury
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.htm
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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."
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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/0,3604,1315039,00.html). 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
    ..
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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."
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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.
  49. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Pro Audio Audio Product