Posts by Simon Grigg
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Looking at giving the Air Force back their jet fighters as a future christmas present. Jet fighters that arer obsolete and have no armament, at that.
Whilst I don't agree (or totally disagree to be honest) with this decision, they ain't jet fighters by any stretch, they're trainers. NZ hasn't had jet fighters since the Vampires were retired in 1971. The Skyhawks were ground attack aircraft and these MB339s are able to used for the same, albeit mostly as weapons trainers. Used for that they are not obsolete, whereas the Skyhawks were (as were the junk Shipley was buying to replace them with).
I do think it's unfortunate that NZDF lost it's fast jet training ability, a skill which has some application beyond combat.
-
Radiohead would have been singing a different tune altogether if 90% of people who downloaded their album paid $10 for it and everyone went to their website to grab it instead of bit torrenting it.
Rob, if you understand anything about what they wanted to do, you'd get that the torrent was a part of the success. They said before it was out..take if from here, take it from anywhere, pay what you like. And if you want to confirm both that and work out what Tom Yorke was saying before, google. It's not hard to find. Or try this story about how it did change things. The point you miss is that it was never about models or any other word that equates to that, it was about thinking outside the square, about being innovative and it worked. You are asking the wrong questions.
2 simple points and it all goes away :)
For me it has already. How many times do we have to go over the same ground. Finis.
-
ok, that's conveniently one person who wants to make himself look good. the question was, do you think all people involved were looking at it from a self serving perspective or were perhaps some of those people interested in seeing how the public would react to this model.
No, it's not just one person, it's the person who drove this. Rob this is getting silly. It seems we've been over this 1000 times and it's just looping over and again. No-one has evaded anything. It starts to get ludicrous when you are saying that Radiohead are trying to 'make themselves look good' esp as they've said the same thing from day one repeatedly.
Best we leave it.
-
another possibility is that music may cease to matter. houses, cars food, and socks will go on being sold exactly as they have been using the past tried and true method and music and media will simply luck out.
That's another possibility isn't it?The way all those things are being sold, manufactured, researched and administered in the last decade have changed dramatically in the past decade, in a way they haven't since their inception so I'm not sure why music should be the exception. Especially as the form it exists in has completely changed. Not just altered but radically changed.
that's might brave of you to speak on behalf of everyone involved in the concept from raioheads perspective. Are you sure you can say on behalf of their entire team that none of them were hoping they'd see a solid move toward a viable stable model, embraced by a majority of music listeners?
Yep, because they repeatedly said so.
“It's not supposed to be a model for anything else. It was simply a response to a situation. We're out of contract. We have our own studio. We have this new server. What the hell else would we do?"
Simply really.
-
Kitty hawk lead to trans atlantic flight but left as it was it didn't get you from new york to london or anywhere near it.
directing such a comparison to my comments is miles off base.Which is my point exactly. And we've had no experience of the business models that exist or will exist in the world to come. We are re-writing everything at the moment and are in the early stages, in every field, of a revolution as big as the wheel.
You seem to be trying to fit the past into the future and it doesn't wash anymore. The joy of Radiohead, Eno / Byrne and so many others working as they are is that they are thinking outside the square and have realised that the old is truly. They may not have the answers yet but its a crawl in the direction that things may go.
Why are we discussing In Rainbows anyway, it feels like a lifetime ago now. It inspired so much more, and that is the point you are missing Rob. Outside the fact that it worked for the band, that was only ever the point. It was never about and grand desire to define models.
Even the stuff that was pinched peer 2 peer is a part of why it worked.
I'm done with Radiohead.
-
I'm not saying there won't be a solution but I sincerely doubt radiohead's model is it and so do the band no doubt which would explain them using other methods to collect sales one they'd gleaned the media exposure from the experiment, a media exposure that will not be available to others cos the story is old.
That's like pointing at the Wright Flyer and saying "people will never fly across the Atlantic..I mean look at it!"
-
And I do recommend that presentation by the TopSpin chap if you haven't gone there yet.
I've been following him for a while with some interest. I think, as Rob agrees, that the Eno / Byrne thing really worked well for, I guess we call them, legacy musicians.
The big problem is as I said earlier, the star factor. Simply put, most musicians, in their early years at least, either wanna be pop stars or wanna be stars in their genre. I'm sure people will argue it, but it applies to 99% of musicians in the rock / pop / dance / hip hop / country and related genres.
The self distribution or many variations in copyright or other models on offer simply don't have the legs to cover such desires and force acts to sign with either cash flush labels or production houses. Show me an up and coming act that wants to distribute via a new model and almost every time I'll show you an act that is only doing so because they can't get signed to a punitive record deal by a big label.
re radiohead are the other people using this model seeing equal or greater results or are the returns diminished?
They claim they made more money from In Rainbows than from every previous release combined. It's a big claim though.
do you think its a model that could sustain 10000 new titles a year?
Nope but ask me again in 5 years when its been reworked 500 times by smart management
-
I'll happily acknowledge they worked for the bands, if you can acknowledge they're unlikely to solve music's problem.
Nope, they certainly offer at least a possibility of the beginnings of a way forward and I think they are increasingly being recognised and explored as such. They offer a positive rather than yet another negative and since a few months back you suggested that Radiohead was a just a one off, and yet the idea has been developed and has worked for several more acts in various forms since, you have to concede that its as likely as anything else on offer.
I don't have a crystal ball but sticking ones finger in the dyke with leaky DRM or S92s as the sealant is never gonna work.
I don't think it's wishful..rather pragmatic.
-
taking a step back from their personal victory there is the point of view that looks at this experiment as a sustainable and viable business model. you're saying that not an important analysis to make.
Rob lets agree to disagree on this
The Mark di Somma quote, as far as I can see works both ways but suffice to say that I think both the Eno / Byrne and Radiohead experiments ofter more of a way forward, or at least a sliver of an inkling of a germ of an idea where it might go than any variations on DRM, s92, RIAA lawsuits, and three strikes have come with cosmic light year of to date.
As much as that goes, and, yes, from the band's POV, it was a roaring success.
But I ain't gonna go round and round on this again.
-
The annoying thing is, the rest of Coddington's column is fair argument.
As a New Zealander this sort of rampant parochial xenophobia makes me rather squirm with embarrassment though:
another $20,000 as initial funding for a documentary on that "well-known New Zealander" Robert Fisk. Eh? A British foreign correspondent - why can't the Poms pay?