|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 183 responses total. |
raven
|
|
response 81 of 183:
| 
May 17 23:29 UTC 2000 |
re #78 It also ignores the fact that some muscians work is difficult or
impossible to perform live. John Oswald (does music involving tens of
thopusands of samples per cd) and Brian Eno spring to mind here. Also a
lot hip hop and certain kinds of elctronica aren't as enjoyable live.
Does anyone have any response to my idea of muscians directly marketing
their songs? It would not be an overnight solution but it seems like a
viable economic model for muscians to migrate towards over time.
It seems to work for Ani Difranco, couldn't this work for other muscians?
|
raven
|
|
response 82 of 183:
|
May 17 23:29 UTC 2000 |
#80 slipped in..
|
scott
|
|
response 83 of 183:
|
May 18 00:42 UTC 2000 |
100 years ago there were no recording artists. If you wanted to be a
professional musician you almost certainly made all your money from
performances.
Is there any reason why we need to hang on to our current model so hard?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 84 of 183:
|
May 18 02:23 UTC 2000 |
Well, for all its flaws, we know the current model works, good and interesting
music gets made under it, and musicians find enough incentive to keep working.
For all people complain about record companies stifling innovation, there
seems to be a lot more variety in music, reaching a lot wider of an audience,
than there was under other models we know of. I imagine it's tempting to
cling to what you know works, rather than strike off into the great unknown.
More to the point, since things will change whether we want them to or not,
it makes good sense to cling to those aspects of the current model that work
especially well. There's nothing irrational about trying to have the things
that change be the things that weren't working so well in the first place.
|
aaron
|
|
response 85 of 183:
|
May 18 04:00 UTC 2000 |
re #70: And I'm always disappointed when people ignore obvious intent to
split semantic hairs. I guess we both have our burdens to bear. ;)
re #71: How does it "violet" somebody's rights to not be prosecuted for
a crime? (Or do you think that criminal indictments are like
bubblegum -- if you bring enough for one person, you have to bring
enough for everybody?)
re #72: I think that the licensing issue, and bundling, make it easier to
stay profitable as a software manufacturer, despite widespread
software piracy. Institutional customers really do put themselves
at risk if they don't license their software, even if the typical
consumer pirates four out of five applications on their home PC.
But I don't think that UM or General Motors will be negotiating
a deal with Warner to put a CD collection on every worker's desk,
any time soon.
re #74: Who is being condescending? I seriously want to know if your
little tantrums make you feel better? Do they?
If you feel fine, why do you insert an outburst into every remark?
re #78: Actually, there have been some interesting cases over the
intellectual property rights of architects, which relate to such
things as photographic reproduction of the architect's work, or
modifications to a signature building.
re #79: It's also probably hard on a composer, who simply writes for other
artists. Or somebody like Prince, who has contributed to the
repertoires of The Bangles, Kenny Rogers, Ray Charles, Sinead
O'Connor, and many other artists, in addition to having his own
recording career.
|
scott
|
|
response 86 of 183:
|
May 18 11:36 UTC 2000 |
I'm curious why the "few big stars" model which we've been living with is
good, though. I'd rather see many local/regional bands, even if they aren't
as perfectly polished.
Back several hundred years ago, composers would freely take melodies and such
from each other. The idea was to see who could do the best arrangements with
them.
|
brighn
|
|
response 87 of 183:
|
May 18 21:56 UTC 2000 |
#85> *shrug* This is how I post. Other people have said I seem to be
tantrumming, or incindiery, or confrontational, or whatever. The only thing
that's accurate there is the confrontational bit. I don't like it when idiots
open their mouths around me.
I find it ironic and vindicating thta, in the end, it turns out that other's
restatement of his stance sounds almost exactly like what I explicitly said,
even though you, Aaron, insisted I was the one who was confused. The only
thing I was confused about was the level to which other's original plan agreed
with mine.
|
aaron
|
|
response 88 of 183:
|
May 19 03:47 UTC 2000 |
Did that make you feel better?
|
brighn
|
|
response 89 of 183:
|
May 19 13:53 UTC 2000 |
oh shut up
|
mcnally
|
|
response 90 of 183:
|
May 19 17:53 UTC 2000 |
Thank you both, *so much* for playing.. Can you perhaps take all
of the "I know you are, but what am I" and "am not, are too" to e-mail?
|
brighn
|
|
response 91 of 183:
|
May 19 18:17 UTC 2000 |
View hidden response.
|
other
|
|
response 92 of 183:
|
May 19 19:36 UTC 2000 |
"The last word..."
Personally, I find these spats mildly entertaining. Of course, if people
wanted to stop providing me such entertainments, they could simply *ignore*
provocative comments which detract from the discussion at hand. Why anyone
would deny me thusly, though, I'll never know... ;)
|
scott
|
|
response 93 of 183:
|
May 19 19:40 UTC 2000 |
I find it annoying to have a decent discussion goobered up with people who
get a little too steamed.
|
brighn
|
|
response 94 of 183:
|
May 19 20:09 UTC 2000 |
#91 expurgated.
I apologize for allowing Aaron's behavior to affect my posts.
I'm really not in the emotional state that's been attributed to me.
*shrug*
Anybody who wishes to go back to the original thread, please do so.
Anybody who wishes to address the issue of whose behavior is juvenile,
irritating, or whatnot, please don't.
For my part, I'm done with the personal comments and commentary in this item.
|
aaron
|
|
response 95 of 183:
|
May 19 21:11 UTC 2000 |
Um, Paul -- I hate to break it to you, but you were the leader, and I
chose not to follow in *your* footsteps. Mind you, you can delude yourself
as to what really happened... if it makes you feel better. :*
|
mcnally
|
|
response 96 of 183:
|
May 19 21:43 UTC 2000 |
Aaron: the "he started it" defense (valid or not) only protects those
who are twelve years old or younger (physical age, not maturity.)
I realize your specialty is criminal law, but I'm surprised that that
wasn't covered as part of your education.
|
brighn
|
|
response 97 of 183:
|
May 19 21:45 UTC 2000 |
View hidden response.
|
aaron
|
|
response 98 of 183:
|
May 19 22:14 UTC 2000 |
re #96: As delightful as it would be to answer you in kind, I will
instead remind you that we are supposed to be discussing MP3's.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 99 of 183:
|
May 19 22:42 UTC 2000 |
We are supposed to be discussing MP3s and yet, for some strange reason,
we are not.. Hmmmm..
Anyway, back on track -- Wired News had an amusing article this week
about a diatribe Courtney Love apparently indulged in when asked to
address a recording-industry group of some sort (the mind boggles..)
Those who read the article will find that Love's position is apparently
akin to some of those espoused here..
(in the interests of fairness, former proponents of such views will
be allowed to revise and/or "clarify" their positions as necessary
to avoid being in agreement with Love.. ;-)
|
aaron
|
|
response 100 of 183:
|
May 19 23:03 UTC 2000 |
I am perfectly happy to agree with Courtney. She's my heroin. Er, heroine.
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,36410,00.html
|
other
|
|
response 101 of 183:
|
May 20 16:34 UTC 2000 |
"Maybe they'll give tips." Heh.
To be fair, I kind of expect that the system would work much like the
shareware system works. MP3's could be be encoded with a shareware
reminder at the beginning or end, and for a small fee, access can be made
available to a notice-free replacement file, along with additional
tracks.
Lot of people will share the tracks that one person has paid for, and
lots of people will pay the small fee. But the artists will get the fees
directly.
|
scott
|
|
response 102 of 183:
|
May 20 16:58 UTC 2000 |
Chuck D's article says that other forms of money making will be "discovered
or rediscovered". I'll agree that it's pretty hard to make money with the
current download model, but there's an incredible market for whoever can
figure it out first. And no, some form of copy protection is *not* an option
that makes any sense.
|
aaron
|
|
response 103 of 183:
|
May 21 17:34 UTC 2000 |
I don't think that voluntary payment systems are likely to work.
Microsoft's proposal is in some ways the most viable -- create a
proprietary format, and sue anybody who utilizes that format without
paying royalties.
|
raven
|
|
response 104 of 183:
|
May 21 18:29 UTC 2000 |
The real question is who's getting payed here? Remeber the artist is making
5% of the purchuse price of a cd in Royalties. If the artist produced their
own mp3 and sold them direct they would making damn near 100% of royaliaties
(100%- transaction charge and promotion fees) thus even if their sales were
lower and there was some piracy of the mp3s it seems likely that they could
still make a living due to the higher profit margin.
The record industry will argue that artisits need the hype machine to make
money but I don't think it's true, Ani Difranco, Phish, and the Grateful
Dead make money without hype, I think is true of some eltronica artists like
the Orb as well, REM was not heavily hyped in their early days when they were
on IRS records, neither were the Dead Kennedies, nor the Indigo Girls.
If an artist is good they can make good money by word of mouth. I think
direct sales on the internet only increses this potential.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 105 of 183:
|
May 21 20:18 UTC 2000 |
Another interesting twist that occurred to me yesterday is that there are
people who could turn a profit selling mp3s -- the smaller-name artists, who
don't have a wide enough following for mp3 trading to build up momentum. I'm
not gonna pay for a Dave Mathews Band mp3 when I can turn dozens of them up
for free with a few minutes on the web, and not many other people are going
to either, so Dave Mathews stands to lose a lot of money on the mp3 thing.
But I heard recently that Rickie Lee Jones is going to be selling mp3s of an
obscure side project of hers called Austin Chain, and hell yeah, I'd buy
those, because I've checked, and _nobody_ has them on the web. Austin Chain,
by virtue of their obscurity, actually stands to make a little money through
mp3 sales.
More support for the idea that we're gonna see a return to lots of small local
bands?
|
