Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
and I just went WTF to each other.
was it the music or the theatrics that impressed the most?
its a pretty catchy tune but for the time his presentation was pretty out there.
Riddell is still making music. I think he released a new album in the last couple of years, or maybe he's got one coming up. -
they'd have to start giving away music the following morning
that's the big difference though isn't it. you giving it away at your discretion is very different from having someone else do it at theirs.
its an interesting concept but one you can very easily lose control of.I got my copies of Screaming Mee Mees and Blam Blam Blam albums as promo copies from Simon for review purposes. I never did buy them, but I did give them good reviews. Still got them too.
Simon was in control of my copies though, he chose to give them to me.
-
bugger, in lots of 20. 8 till the 1200 post
(record sales boomed because of population increase..seriously?
try this math
if the population is 100 and 50 percent of the population buys a cd in one year thats 50 cds
if the population takes off (baby boom anyone?) and is 200 and 50% of the population buys a cd in one year thats 100 cds sold.
there is no boom in music consumption, its still only 50% of the population. The population just got bigger so one would expect your sales to keep increasing every year to reflect that increase and it wouldn't mean an increase (boom) in music.in 1960 the world population was just over 3 billion
1974 = 4 billion.
in 2987 it hit 5 billion.music doesn't have to become more popular as a past time to sell more units, it just has to ride the wave of population increase.
Also accessing new markets can have a massive effect on a "boom"
China embracing western culture for example. If events like that happened at the time home taping hit would you still hold to the view that home taping cause the boom? Just cos it happened at the same time as an increase in sales doesn't mean its the cause, just like downloading happening in the same time span as a decline is necessarily the cause. it could be as mark says, maybe music just sucked in that period.as for charting the cultural aspects of music and its relevance to the buying public, I have no idea on how that has changed over time, you feel comfortable in discounting it completely in order to explain your 'boom' completely via home taping.
I don't view it so simplistically.There's hardly a battle going on here though, I'm questioning your argument that hometaping was good for the industry on the grounds that that theory can them be used to argue that un controlled filesharing is good for it too.
apart from these things being an order of magnitude different it just doesn't necessarily follow and it isn't backed up by statistics and studies that I've seen. Did anyone even address this concept in surveys? Maybe you've got access to data to prove it that will fit in with the high standards mark has set for us.
-
CBS gave away blank tapes with hit albums and explicitly encouraged you to tape a copy for someone. I guess they, unlike their modern counterparts, understood, long term.
or maybe they viewed hits packages as loss leaders to albums by artists, kinda like radio. that's a little different to the industry on mass saying "hey here's a tape, copy all our stuff, we don't care".
amongst other acts, The Damned
wouldn't know, I never bought their albums :)
this should be page 60 or the 600th post
-
They've lasted pretty well in much of the third world
he means they wear out, and they do if you play em enough. oxide coated plastic tape rubbing over metal heads etc.
Funnily enough with my restoration work I actually had less trouble getting good results off cassette than off vinyl and master reel.
Many mastertapes were badly made and the oxide started shedding and the adhesive that bonded it to the tape did some weird chemical thing where it would stick to the heads making tapes unplayable. I hit that on almost all late 70's to nineties masters. they had to be baked in an oven to re bond them to get one last play. Cassettes didn't do this and most played as good as the last time they were played.
vinyl while a cleaner sound was a real prick to deal with, with crackling and pops which come out of nowhere even in a well stored and near mint item.Even in the first world the cassette was a major format from about 1970 thru to the early 2000s
in NZ as a label the last cassette I sold was last decade.
I can't remember the last one I actually bought.CDs have longevity problems too. Early cd pressings were prone to cd rot. I've got a batch of the first cd I ever pressed in 91 that is unplayable now, not cos I damaged them but cos they sat in a cupboard and did it to themselves.
-
I'm not going to get into one of these endless spirals
excellent, that'd be sweet if you didn't...
....That home taping was a non-event,
oh, right, so you are going to .. so I was right about that after all
non-event,
sustainable
perhaps
well that's my point. where's your parallel universe to prove your perhaps. you don't have one do you so you're guessing.
I clearly proved that in a previous time (the age of vinyl without tape) you had different courses of action available to you to share music ie buying (or as pointed out by stephen loaning). Music was pretty big then too. Sure numbers went up in the 70's and 80's but so did population and music as a cultural force. Of course you're going to get an increase in total sales purely cos there are more people each year buying into music culture. that doesn't prove that home taping caused that at all, just that they happened at the same time.
Where are the figures that project what would have been expected to sell taking into account population increase and music becoming a bigger cultural factor, but estimating that with and without home taping? I haven't seen those stats yet, and those are the ones you need to prove your point.pretty much accepted
not quite the same as irrefutable is it. You're arguing in absolutes about things that aren't. Yes there were poeple who shared mix tapes and went out and bought albums from tracks their mates gave them, but for every one of those there were people who got whole albums of stuff that they never went out and bought and who played those tapes in the same way that they played new tapes, only they never paid new retail prices for them. Are you trying to say that didn't happen too? I get your theory but it just isn't the blanket case for how home taping worked that you want us to believe it is.
How do I know that?
Well me for instance, I didn't buy copies of damned or buzzcocks albums, but I had em on cassette,
Would I have bought them?, yes,
why didn't I?
Cos a mate taped their copy for me.
Did it lead to more sales of Damned or Buzzcocks? Nope, never bought their stuff. Didn't need to, my mate taped em for me.
Did I buy music? Yes, shit loads but mostly stuff I couldn't get from taping.
Are you trying to tell me I was the only one who acted like that? That's a lost argument cos I new hundreds of people doing it exactly like that.artists and catalogues were often given more currency.
Really? As much currency as they would have got if the same person had bought it new? (yes I know I'm playing off your meaning of the word currency in a different way than you used it). I think not. A second hand disc produces no revenue to an artist, a new one does. That's a pretty simple concept. given the option an artist would rather sell a copy that delivers money back to them. And lets face it for years there second hand discs weren't that much cheaper than new ones, and that's still the case with real groovy's over inflated prices. It's places like penny lane records that have bought the price of second hand down. Loving their dollar vinyl bins etc.
Hell, it got to the stage where some labels were giving away a blank cassette with each vinyl copy to encourage taping. They got it.
Did it come with instructions to "tape this album and give it to your friends", or was it perhaps a gimmick and intended to encourage formatshifting? (something no one ever got prosecuted for even though it was technically illegal). "Tape this and play it in your car, we're hip with that, we're cool like you, buy more product".
I can't actually say I remember the free tape deal much if at all. Maybe you could illuminate us on how often and give us examples or actual artists that had it on their products.'home taping is killing music' and all that implies is one of those statements that raises a bit of an embarrassed smile
difference between killing and killed.
Its a catchier phrase than "home taping is taking sales away from us and we'd really rather you bought your friend a copy as opposed to dubbing one off for him from vinyl, please".
You simply can't argue that the difference between 2 sales of an album and one sale and one dub is the same income. Its ridiculous.Your point is that some people did in fact use this as a means of radio, promotion, they shared their finds to friends and friends went out and bought it. Agreed, this did happen in some cases, but it did not happen in all cases, and like Mark and his hankering for actual studies and facts you're going to have to do a lot better than hypothesize and use terms like "perhaps", and "pretty much" if you want to seriously disregard some pretty obvious math.
How bout this. You can be partly right, and I can be partly right, and we can have a grey area in the middle too. Would that keep us out of the endless spiral. Cos I'm not saying your point never happened or is ridiculous, but you are saying that about mine.
I know full well it did, cos I did it. It didn't kill it, it just damaged a higher possible income, a sustainable thing as I said and you argued against. -
So why does the reverse of a boom mean that downloading caused that?
in itself it doesn't but you would have to prove your point that something else is causing it.
I don't think there are conclusive official studies yet that identify the real effect of downloading but there are plenty of personal examples (everyone around me does it and doesn't buy music etc) some studies that allude to it (which you've said you think are too small a sample field), and the rest is speculation, like we do on here. put our best guess forward. -
a lot of that went on. did it benefit the artists in the long term? any more or less than taping?
that's a good question Stephen.
I think 1 is promo, which could indeed lead to another sale because the original disc would we assume be returned at some stage, and if the borrower wished to continue having access to said music then the option is to borrow again or buy.2 does nothing for the owner of the copyright.
-
For chrissakes, rob.
dude, joke,
I have the same uncontrollable urge to buy this stuff, shelves full of the stuff. Some times it does almost feel uncontrollable, and you know there are more important things to spend the cash on but still, it ain't no sickness.
Its not like being a shop-a-holic is in the same league as gambling addiction.back off on the sensitivity. there was no insult intended.
-
that home taping -- both from the radio and from my mate's big bro's collection -- got me hooked on popular music,
you're conclusively saying that the fact you could copy it for free was the main factor you liked music and that if you couldn't have done that you'd be an accountant with a gardening fetish with no liking for music at all?
if you take it back to our parents time of vinyl only my mum couldn't copy music but she had a huge record collection, she wasn't rich but she found the money to feed her addiction. being able to tape it meant nothing simply cos it wasn't an option. I don't know why one would argue that being able to grab something for free necessarily promotes an industry.
There were plenty of avenues to sample without owning (radio, live, friends)
I don't think it necessarily follows that home taping makes faithful addicts.
Do I get a slice 'o them fees?
perhaps a sickness subsidy if you can get a doctor to diagnose music purchase addiction as valid and recognised illness