Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
except they were wrong as I pointed out a couple of pages back
That's a bit of a broad generalisation simon.
There was plenty in both those articles that wasn't wrong. -
Bomb Party if they had much idea of what they were talking about
they did get some pretty interesting perspectives regardless of the technicalities of who owns what in the present day. they're right in that these battles aren't necessarily as black and white as they're portrayed. and if you just can't bring yourself to take on board the other ideas in bomb party's post then the original article linked to by Giovanni may feed the same ideas without the niggling specks that irritate. both of em add an interesting perspective to a typecast battle.
-
they are able to use the 70% from Apple (less the cost of the aggregator)
apple won't deal directly with artists as far as I know. you have to go through an agrregator (essentially a distributor) who will take their cut. the 70% is misleading cos you're never going to see 70%. you have to hand a portion of it over to the people who got you through the gate.
you'll also be fronting for all of the production costs yourself, ie artwork, recording, mixing, mastering, promotion (no one's going to download you if they don't see you in the crowd). Luckily not manufacturing though. -
There's been talk lately of Apple signing artists to iTunes directly.
sounds like a complete coup of the entire music distribution industry.
are they going to front for recording and production costs or are they just licensing the finished product?if you were the only player in a market you wouldn't have to give way more money to anyone cos the alternative would be being shut out of said market.
-
The major labels discovered this in the pre-iTunes days. They tried to be their own retailers, and the result was deeply lousy
so bomb party is pretty spot on the mark with this comment then.
All web applications like MySpace, YouTube, etc. do is exchange one form of corporate mediation - that offered by a record company - for another - that offered by a telecommunications/software company
or in this case a web retailer owned by a computer manufacturer.
all that talk of independence (you can do it all yourself now), smash the system (evil record companies keeping fans money from the "artists") but really its exactly the same as before except this time we have a net retailer taking its 1/3 for doing less than the previous retailer did (no actual stock, no shop floor and high street rent).
Artists can do it themselves but they're pretty much in the same position as pressing their own discs. The obstacles in their way as similar but different, but the net effect is the same.
-
enjoying fucking with Steve Jobs
that's as good a reason as any.
what happened to the whole internet gives you independence thing? -
pg 64 anyone? now that's spooky
-
Obama Sides With RIAA, Supports $150,000 Fine per Music Track
ouchie,
gives on a hankering for a educational notice or three. -
There wasn't. The form they bought it in changed because of the flows of fashion, and the 13 year olds who screamed at the Beatles went to Woodstock
so they're buying elvis and beatles early albums
Please Please Me 1963, With The Beatles 1963, A Hard Day's Night 1964, Beatles for Sale 1964, Help! 1965, Rubber Soul 1965, Revolver 19661967 comes along, out pops sgt peppers,
where's the boom? what changed?
There were albums a plenty before that.
did it reflect in specific album sales ie multimillion sales of individual items - Sgt peppers shit loads but not anything else), or was it a market wide boom, in that all albums went up in sale.cos if its across the market it would seem like a change in attitude to the importance of owning recorded music in which case its a cultural change. no tie in to the advent of home taping though?
-
Neither the PRS or YouTube is evil, they merely have competing interests.
The whole point of his article was that media and commentators do cast parties in distinctly stereotyped terms, and those terms when investigated are misleading.
we see it here and in posts linked to here. evil apra, evil rianz, stupid old roger shepherd (when he says something we don't like) etc. go telstra clear standing up for the rights of the individual, the myth of the artist and the fan. it was a very illuminating read and its a shame the style of his writing was the main thing you noticed cos he presented some really interesting views of points of discussion.
Hatherley took that starting point and applied it to other stereotypes in the copyright debate.
I particularly liked
the notion that the internet is administered by 'little guys' as opposed to gigantic corporations. Hence, you have the absurd, but curiously successful, self-presentation of Google/YouTube as defenders of freedom against the Peforming Rights Society for Music, who are essentially an arm of a trade union; and linked to this, the idea that file-sharing is somehow anti-establishment, notwithstanding the intimate links between the likes of BitTorrent and the corporations they supposedly subvert.
and this one
the internet often serves to actually reinforce, rather than dismantle, the old boy networks, by making writing into a hobby rather than a job
tack in Bomb party's
The notion that the World Wide Web (or perhaps 'Web 2.0') offers the chance of unmediated, direct access between producers and consumers is, similarly, a myth that requires exploding. All web applications like MySpace, YouTube, etc. do is exchange one form of corporate mediation - that offered by a record company - for another - that offered by a telecommunications/software company.
........If the idea of a 'bad' major record label is one which gives producers little control over their labour power and what happens to the products thereof, and pays them little or no reward for their work, then MySpace and YouTube and so forth should be seen as the 'bad' mediators par excellence.
this is all about PR,