Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
didn't I just explain that? Yes, I think I did.
fucked if I know, you keep changing the story.
I thought you were saying the boom was caused by hometaping but its changed so much and so much was left out that I can't actually be sure and as defined by previous arguments I know we're not going to get it in one sentence from you now, are we. that would be too easy. :)You were not in the UK or Europe at the time.
oh, right, so now its in uk and europe, that's an important bit of the story you left out there wasn't it.
One I recall was The Psychedelic Furs' debut.
so was it one or wide spread. you seem to be implying it was an indication of the laughing labels getting it on mass which lead to them embarrassingly smiling at how stupid they were to think that a blank tape and a full length album was a sale that wasn't going to happen.
a hit album by an artist they were trying to break. The two definitions need not be exclusive.
well its your picture and they seem to be you're rules you're making up but I think a "hit album" technically has to be one that has already broken. (is it a hit album if it never breaks just cos people don't get its true brilliance?) So your original statement which left out the "in uk and europe" part also was pretty misleading. it can't be a hit if no ones bought it. its a hit after that.
your original comment was specifically to the sustainable loss comment that you took as so offensive.
you argue that if I copy my friends album there is no loss in sale to the artist even though I tell you I would have bought it otherwise.
(I like the album, its too cool not to have and listen to it, if I couldn't have copied it and wanted to own it I would have no choice but to buy it). a guaranteed sale removed by illegal copying is a lost sale. whether it broke the industry or not.
its a sustainable loss because they were making so much money by high prices and riding a boom in music sales that it didn't hurt them enough to have an effect.That the industry didn't crumble is not an indication that home taping had no effect. It was compensated for by a boom,
which a boom you discount as being caused by either population increase or music being an increased cultural force. so what caused it?The only argument you've put forward was home taping was good for music so I have to take it from what you've said (and you've left out a few key points already which you've later added so it could be some other mystery force) that you think it was because of home taping? Until you say otherwise that's all the insight you've given to your view on the cause of the boom unless I've missed that bit.
-
I see what you did there.
damn this day job. -
And this is alarmist bollocks:
you should ring him and tell him that. or get him on media 7 and discuss it with him in public.
get chris hocquard on too, make it 2 to one in favour of artists side instead of the other way round.
that'd be a show I'd happily fileshare :) -
no, I'm talking albums. Nothing to do with singles. I have no idea where you got that from.
that'd be from this line here
CBS gave away blank tapes with hit albums
which in light of your elaboration does not mean a hits package but a successful album. so I did misinterpret that form your intended meaning. I'll accept 58.9 percent of the blame for that.
but then you said
I'm talking albums by artists they were trying to break
which makes it more confusing. a hit they're trying to break, so its not a hit at all??
To be honest I can't remember ever getting a tape with an album so I'm not sure how wide spread the practice was or that it goes to show the industry "getting" anything or merely trying a gimmick on an album they didn't know what to do with.
was in first world countries many of which were almost population stagnant
not nth America. 600000 growth there over that period but not enough to explain orders of magnitude purchases although age group swells are more important that total population. ie 16-35 booms. not enough to explain a big burst though.
so what are you attributing that exponential boom to. surely not home taping, please no.
-
sorry bout the page numbers fixation thing. I'm just bored and killing time till Roger Shepherd stops "missing the point" and starts filesharing my music so I can be rich.
-
The 1200th post is the last one on the 60th page, not the first one (which would be #1181).
cos there's no page zero.
Thanks kyle. -
And it's also a shame when respected industry contributors like Roger Sheperd miss that point.
I normally ignore what you write sacha as I hope you do with what I write, so much more peaceful that way, but that one was just too good to overlook.
Roger Shep**h**erd??, what the fuck would that guy know about producing music? What's he ever done...... apart from the whole making a successful label and spearheading the boom in nz music and taking it to the world, but apart from that, what? exactly.Its the unfailing self belief in the face of intelligent and knowledgeable comments from others that impresses the most. perhaps the answer's somewhere inbetween?
-
its too late simon.
Bloody mark got the 1200 /pg 60 post.I thought you said "you weren't going to go there, not going to get into one of these endless spirals"
colour me shocked.
It was simply that people bought increasingly more albums in the post Sgt Pepper period,
oh, so now you're specifically talking about albums as opposed to music sales in general.
don't forget that the population of the earth went up from 3 billion to 5 billion ie almost doubled between the early 60's and mid 80's.
I may have miss read you but I took your comments to mean that you and the chuckling industry credit the boom in music (now album) sales almost solely to the introduction of home taping machines capable of copying full albums.
I'm merely noting that there could have been other factors involved in that big boost in dirty filthy money sale.To make you point a little bit more valid though you're going to have to estimate where home taping kicked in.
I get the viral thing. Give em a taster and lead em in to buy the full product etc etc. I don't agree with unchecked mass copying as a good thing though, which was home taping and is full album filesharing. There's nothing left to buy when you can get the whole thing in one bite for free.
greatest hits?
who mentioned greatest? and you're not talking albums you're talking singles from albums in a bundle so lets call em singles packages shall we?
They weren't giving tapes to copy albums were they? they were giving tapes to distribute singles packages which were there to draw in people to buy albums. That's a different vibe from the industry being on board with home taping of the variety of "copy anything you like and give it to your friends".Pretty much the most important statement made in this thread.
really??, of all the topics covered in 1200 posts over 60 pages that's the most ground breaking (no disrespect to russell for making it). that sounds a little bit like exaggeration to me,
I think you'd be better off saying its the most important to this tiny bit of the discussion, to you.
Personally I'm a fan of some of Giovanni's comments. insightful and succinct. -
just went WTF to each other
I've heard the same story from quite a few people hitting music interest age at that time.
The guy from all music guide is pretty rude about the band but he didn't have the advantage of seeing it from a resident of nz perspective.
Make no mistake about it -- this record would have not existed had it not been for David Bowie. It's not just that Alistair Riddell himself affected an androgynous look rather like Bowie's early-'70s visage. This New Zealander also sounded very much like Bowie in the 1970-1972 period,
Bowie himself had passed through that phase by the time this was issued in Riddell's native New Zealand in 1975, but given how slowly trends traveled to that part of the world in those days, it might well have seemed pretty cutting edge.
There's no getting past its blatant imitativeness,..
.....but if you are the kind who likes the early David Bowie sound enough to be satisfied by unoriginal approximations of the real thing, this is pretty good for what it is.
. - Richie Unterberger, All Music Guidesomeone in the comments section to that video link said it quite well
re : your.. " he's not on Bowies's level" .. comments.... ah, you just have no idea how nervy this was in NZ in 1974."New Faces" was like a geriatric's flower show - but despite that, Phil Judd and Alistar Riddell were somehow in it.There had never been a Bowie clip on NZ TV, and barely a track on the radio. Things were a little ... different back then.
Friends of mine, one a son of a church vicar have said similar things in very animated ways.
a couple of years too early for me but still, I can appreciate the impact -
Sony EBook Store to Offer 1/2 million Classic Books Digitized by Google for free
The books, all published before 1923 and now in the public domain, were digitized by Google as part of its Google Book Search program. Sony will offer them alongside the 100,000 or so books still under copyright that it sells through its eBook store.