Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The bomb party post is an illuminating read debunking many common myths and misconceptions we see repeated over and over relating to other facets of the discussion outside of just the videos on youtube side of things.
the issue is presented as a clash between, on the one hand, the 'old' exploitative music industry, and, on the other, the brave new world of Web 2.0, offering direct unmediated access between 'artists' and 'fans'
There can be no opposition between the internet's principal software developers and the major multinational record companies, they are joined by ties of common ownership (Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, for instance, owns both MySpace and several recording and music publishing interests; Time-Warner-AOL owns, of course, both AOL and the Warner Music Group, as well as holding considerable shares - to the tune of $1 billion - in Google,
The move on the part of YouTube to present the debate in these terms then, lacking any positive content in reality, must be seen as purely tactical - a somewhat specious attempt on the part of a massive global corporation, with annual advertising revenue to the tune of $16.4 billion (in 2007) and close financial and personnel ties to an even bigger corporate behemoth (Time-Warner), to present itself as 'the little guy'.
There is a perception that there is this thing called 'the music industry' which intervenes in, and distorts, the relationship between two mythical entities called 'artists' (a term which elevates music's producers to the romantic status of geniuses starving in garrets, outside the social, and beyond the dirt and cynicism of circulation) and 'fans' (a term which reduces music's consumers to the hysteric victims of Beatlemania, blindly following the Pied Piper to their doom).
Although there is of course a grain of truth in this, it is certainly no more true than it is of the fashion industry, the potato industry, the furniture industry, the software industry, or the telecommunications industry.
heaps more good stuff in there too. thanks giovanni for linking it.
-
It promoted the concept of "album" as something more than a just a collection of singles
sure, but why would that matter, we've seen recently that the majority of people resent that concept and want to buy only the tracks they like, not the "filler". (I don't adhere to that philosophy but it seems many if not most buying people do).
Its probably not entirely relevant to the discussion anyway because I only drew attention to it to address the hometaping is booming music theory but that may well not have been said in so many words so I can drop that, unless someone wants to argue the affirmative on that.
I would put forward that the boom was caused by a cultural shift, when music actually mattered to peoples lives on an increased level to where it had been before as opposed to being merely pleasant back ground noise.
We had lots of bands making music with something to say.
can't say the same for the disco era though. -
the late 60s, early 70s boom was caused by, as I tried to imply, Sgt Pepper and it's heirs.
Thanks simon, I guess I didn't mis read you then. For me
that's more an observation of what happened but it doesn't define why it happened.
why did people decide to spend their money on music recordings instead of whatever they spent it on before hand?why was there a shift to having recorded music as a central cultural importance when before it had been less so?
there had been good albums before Sgt Peppers. plenty of them. what did Sgt Peppers change in people?
-
-
correction
- Campbell Smith is an entertainment lawyer, Artist Manager and Chief Executive Officer for RIANZ an organisation that represents the evil 4 and another 48 labels, some of em not evil. Campbell is well known locally for friendly advice and being a stand up kinda guy and also a success at what he does, ie managing the mot successful local artists some of whom are into the whole artists inegrity thing, like the well known burger chef Bic Runga. -
none of those people are record company execs in the evil mogel monster sense.
- Roger Shepherd is a music industry consultant and ex founder of the most successful indie music label in nz
- Ant Healey is head of apra nz
- Campbell Smith is an entertainment lawyer, Artist manager and chairperson for RIANZ (which is an organisation of many labels including the evil 4)
- Chris Hocquard is an entertainment law specialist who set up nz's first and longest standing music download site specialising exclusively in nz music, mostly independent.That's a pretty big representation of the good people who have worked hard and eanestly for the art of music in this country.
how far down the chain do you want to go before you find a voice that is acceptable for you?
-
farrar's piece is riddled with inconsistencies and misrepresentations of what roger said and meant.
The comments are equally ill informed. where to start?Shepherd
I cannot see anyone investing in digital music developments in New Zealand while illegal downloading goes unregulated and unpunished.
Farrar
Here Shepherd is just flat out wrong. Illegal downloading is already punishable, and has always been punishable.
Farrar ignores Shepherds point.
At present downloading is getting away with being unregulated and unpunished purely because it is too difficult to stop it, without help.
Yes it is possible to prosecute but under present conditions and without the help of isps we get huge court cases causing bad pr and ending up with $100000 fines for something that isn't a $100000 fine offense.as pointed out by a commenter on farrars page "There is a difference between punishable, and punished."
Shepherd's not flat out wrong, he's spot on the mark.
S92A is a call for isps to help. Insisting on it because for them its easier to throw up your hands and say its not our problem.
Instead of seeing calls for repair to S92A (ie we get that this is necessary but you need to fix this and this) we're seeing attempts to derail it and put content holders back exactly where they have been for the last 10 years. Same with DRM. Everything they try gets strong effort to derail it. "back to square one, that's where we want you". that's the message that's coming through.
ShepherdCopyright laws are a sign of a civilised society. We appreciate those in the creative industries who generate ideas, music and art and protect their work and their ability to make a living from it by giving them copyright protection.
farrar
Another red herring. No one is arguing there should be no copyright laws.
and shepherd didn't say anyone was saying that, his point was they were not being enforced. what's the point in having laws if they are not enforced. another non point to farrar.
his next point is bollock too.shepherd isn't seeking accusation without proof, he's seeking action on a law. derailing the whole initiative is not helping get a fair law, its pushing it back to square one. nothing.
shepherdWithout Section 92, the wheels will fall off our local music industry and there will be no more homegrown successes
farrar
And blatant scare mongering. No one would dispute that illegal downloads do not pose a commercial threat to soem artists. But really claiming that without S92, there will never ever again by a sucessful homegrown musician is pathethic scare mongering.
bollock again and quoting only part of what shepherd said.
Shepherd didn't just say "no home grown musician success", he followed that with "there will not be another New Zealand-based, globally recognised success like Flying Nun".
He didn't specify artists, he specified label, and with that he means industry to back up artists. A bunch of individuals on their laptops can do impressive things, if their lucky. An industry to back them up can offer more solid ground to achieve their goals. Why would anyone invest in a fragmented industry as it has become.Remember this isn't some idiot who works for an evil corporation. this is the guy who created a label with complete integrity, he's always been in it for the art and the artist, and he made his label a success where pretty much every other label in nz has floundered.
so he has business skill (proven) and artistic integrity.It's rich that media commentators like farrar choose to try and discredit him and say he doesn't get it. one has to ask he question, He conclude this based on what?
Same goes for Ant Healey, Chris Hocquard and even Campbell Smith.
Media critics question their skills and knowledge based on what?
Their own personal successes in the field? These people are guts deep in the industry Farrar, CFF etcs seems to think they know more about.Apparently these people (shepherd, etc) are unfathomable idiots and we should just take Farrars, CFF etcs word for it.
could it be that simple?
-
Quite. The only real way around it is to refuse to engage at all.
or a one line direct answer.
either or... unless indirectness is the point,
honestly, simon if you did say the reason for the boom I can't see it.
mark hook me up with that puppy please. -
why I was reluctant to get into this
you weren't reluctant, you said you wouldn't, many times.
I fairly clearly noted the reason, or at least a major one, for the 70s and 80s booms a page or so back. Why do I need to repeat myself?
just read through your posts of the last 3 pages.
I found this
Album sales in 70s and beyond multiplied by a factor of many times, way beyond any population increase. It was simply that people bought increasingly more albums in the post Sgt Pepper period, in preference to the singles they'd bought earlier and the increase snowballed.
all that does is say people bought more albums. it doesn't say why they bought more albums.
In a thread of a discussion that addresses the viral nature of filesharing/hometaping and various allusions to hometaping being an integral part of why some people got hooked on buying music the why is all important.I don't need this frustration in my life
and yet,...... you seem like a moth drawn into the flame...... :)
you know I respect you and love what you've done in music in nz, but some of your stuff is board room musings and that's all well and good but as mark says in points that go against my views, studies and statistics are where its at. since there aren't any for a lot of this it's all one person's theory against anothers.
i think if I copy a blams album and give it to a friend and they don't buy that album cos they're completely satisfied with the copy (even though they would have to remain cool) then that is a lost sale to you. you can sustain that loss cos you're trucking them out the door (ok, not so much trucking as cycle couriering).
I'm personally not sure what your point on hometaping was cos it got lost in threaded posts and you refuse to state it clearly in one sentence for me. I guess that's some sort of debating win for you but I honestly would appreciate a clear one sentence point occasionally. it could save frustration, but there's no guarantee :)
-
And?
and everyone got the taste for pre 1920's literature because it was free and a new book was never bought or read again?
I don't know, but you'll never get to 60 pages with that attitude :)