Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But I don't think the sky is going to fall for the average musician, or the genius either. The people who have enjoyed outsized profits through a legal monopoly are the ones who are really going to suffer.
There you go focusing on the exceptions again, the hollywood version of the music industry.
and I'm assuming you're not a musical genius let alone an average one.if you want to have a go at outsized profits then how bout you be fair about it and hit property developers, oil companies, the war industry, real estate agents, big business in general, cabinet ministers, the guy at the corner dairy who tried to charge me $1.40 for a chocolate coating to my 2 scoop tiptop boysenberry cone (its ok, I didn't pay it, just handed it bck to him and said no thanks).
There are many many more industries that make more outlandish profits than the music one. you just know a little about the music one cos they keep making vacuous movies about the glamour of it all, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. -
You're assuming people should be able to make better than ten thousand dollars revenue on making a thousand digital copies of a gig of information. It ain't fair, mate, and law or not people aren't taking it.
you're assuming the lower fee, and that those who take that path can sell all 1000 copies. only the top are managing that these days, mr kilgour being one. and his expenses include travel to america to record it with classy players. he's well in the loss.
e also has a record company (arch hill) who need to pay for their rent, staff, distribution, ph fax and internet, insurance, power, and supply of sour worms.and I'm not nor will I ever be discussing the costs of the latest britney effort. I'm talking in local and relevant figures, britney doesn't matter cos she's an exception to the rule and the mistake so many make is focusing on the exceptions, the coke snorting record exec, fat cat major labels etc, they're not the bulk of the music generating people, and they're not the only ones hurt when you tear down the system that sustains them all. As I said, no ones come up with a viable alternative.
-
he may not have your advertising budget but he doesn't have to pay for your recording company either, nor the stores nor the warehouses, pressing plants, etc etc - as I said the economics are changing
The economics are changing but its deceptive to say there are no costs.
time is a cost. the time they're not out in the work force earning minimum wage to pay their rent is a cost,
promotion is a major player in the equation. you can put up a my space page but unless you drive people to it you're playing to an empty hall. same problems different situation.
The only difference this time is that technology has advance to a level where they have no control over their property. So its back to you paul to solve the problem, a viable 'crypto' solution the defuses mans instinct to steal what he can not get caught for. -
These days you can make a great recording in your living room if you know how, and more and more people do - the recording engineer priesthood is going the way of the people who used to look after mainframes
no its not, they're just not getting paid and we're getting sonically shittier and shitter recordings of the stuff we wish we'd get something reasonable sounding of.
Yes they're making those recordings in living rooms all over nz but they're still using expensive equipment to get the better sounding ones and even the cheaper ones are still expensive.you don't often see a great recording done on 2 microphones (the input of a standard m box or low end machine, and certainly not from a novice musician. it takes years of playing and skill to produce the quality of performance that would allow a no overdubs fuck all processing recording to be made. cowboy junkies were the last band to pull that trick off I think and even then it was more of an experiment in style than actually a great record.
I agree real groovy charge too much, retailers in nz always have. 75% mark up for taking the disc giving it to you and taking your money was always a little rich.
that said very few mom and pop stores are owned by rich people, musicquarium, slow boat and galaxy are hardly rolling in the cash. -
maybe we'll see DRM go away not because it's too annoying for the user but because it's too annoying for the music industry ....
it is annoying for all parties involved but no one has demonstrated a stable and repeatable model for reasonable income flow without controlling the duplication of your music.
DRM may well be unworkable in its present state (and it is merely the fact that no one has come up with a user friendly version of it) but if it is unworkable that spells out pretty terrible things for the stability of making and recording music.
and no one, not even 'play it live' mr david byrne has come up with a viable plan that does not involve getting back the control of copying your music.
Hey I enjoy as much as anyone else getting all I can eat in free things but I can see further down the track how its going to impact on the people that create those things. just cos policing it is impossible doesn't mean its a good thing. -
<quote> maybe we'll see DRM go away not because it's too annoying for the user but because it's too annoying for the music industry ....
I think that's what you're seeing happen. DRM has been used as a lever in a way that not only has little to do with the consumer, it sometimes doesn't have much to do with the copyright owner.</quote>
How does controlling the distribution of your work have little to do with the copyright owner?
Apart from some dreamy notion of everyone's going to get out there and play live and earn a living that way control of the distribution of their material is the ONLY thing they've got going for them.They have to control their property or they'll essentially be making music for the love of it, or the love of giving it away at their expense, which many many (I'm looking at you mr judd) people are quite happy to see.
And that's fine too I guess although you'll see very few second and third entries into an artists catalogue as the novelty of making music and starving will wear off pretty quickly. As an example It's worth noting that radiohead's best works were not their first album, and those albums cost a lot of money to make (good producers don't come cheap and top notch studios the same)
I gave you some bottom of the barrel figures for studio costs but in the real world look to something like the figures quoted in the movie Once where the band recorded demos for £3000 for a weekend of studio time. This was for demos for a band playing live in the studio.And you can't record a band playing live very well on your 2 input m box.
-
Man, what century is this business model from?
I still buy CDs, I like the physical object
your century apparently.
manufacturing a disc is only a small part of the possible equation.
you can spend you money on any number of other things but guarantee most successful journeys won't be without cost.web design if you're design illiterate, online download companies, agreigators, mastering for mp3 (???),
If you think making music and getting it to the public and noticed is for free then you've obviously never done it before.
-
the record executive and his coke habit, his lawyers - these all do the same thing that the computers and the internet can do at 1% of the cost
major cliche.
I've personally never bought a record that went through this kind of system. Indie self financed releases still have sizable costs to bring them to your stereo,
do the math.
indie record selling 1000 copies brings in nz$17000 (wholesale to shops retails for $32 - 75% mark up to the store inc gst)
(david kilgour's albums sell in
CD pressing for 1000 copies $2-3000
Mastering costs - $400- $1000
Artwork $600 - $1000
Recording $5000- 15000 (low end budget)
posters, promo ???
cut for band ???
doesn't really leave much does it.Forget about the coke snorting monster myth. that's dead and gone with the the end of the major labels and there weren't that many of them (and they mostly made music for the masses that music lovers hated), so that leaves a lot of honest folk who are left to get punished with the notion of evil mega corp, and their interests do need to be looked after. and playing it live to make up for the money you lost from recording it is kinda short sighted too. many many artists are not live performing acts.
-
the modern problem is that we have this quite archaic mechanism for protecting the rights of the middle men - the publishers -
That's the over simplified view that pro 'free for all' proponents put forward to gloss over the fact that there are real people putting real work, time, effort, resources, and investment into the creation of music at the front end.
You're dreaming if you think that the better sounding records are made for free at home. even an m-box, good microphone, set of speakers, headphones, etc etc costs a swag, not to mention the skill to run them properly just supposing you're not a natural genius at the technicalities of getting tone to disc. It all adds up and someone is paying for it somewhere. As in any business model there has to be a way to recoup costs or it all falls over.Yeah there are some exceptions to the rule but to push for a 'free for all' model for digital material is short sighted and naive. Its unsustainable and unrealistic based on what we know about human nature. Radiohead's latest being a prime example with 65% of downloaders choosing to pay nothing given the opportunity.
-
I do crypto for a living
I don't,
I just outlined a concept for via DRM, as opposed to the rather naive "lets make all music free and pirate-able" concept.
its up to you 'crypto for a living' guys to make it work.