Jump to content

Fix the record industry!


Recommended Posts

  • Members

jesus everyone is saying cds will be obslete god damn the internet.

 

 

there's way more access now. digital files should be cheaper then physical cds for obvious reasons. everyone will have more music for less. maybe even in 24bit(!). but the profit margin will be much higher for labels. as soon as the industry wakes the hell up and realizes this they'll see how much dough they can make reselling old stock (beatles, hendrix, nirvana) in digital format to people who used to own the disc (and maybe even the vinyl) and how they'll be able to keep up with the buying habits of the next generation. I don't feel sorry for any major labels---they're going to make a killing.

/jonny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Thats not a sub industries though, Apple is just a company. A few studios are still doing very well, but not all of them. Where there is a company making a boatload there is another making diddley-sqwat... Like Microsoft, their equivilant of the Ipod sank like a rock. That is an industry exclusive of the creative side of the industry however... even if music becomes worthless, people will still need a way to reproduce it and listen to it.

 

 

every sub industry has companies, they have to! who would buy an ipod if there wasn't any content to put on it? of course people need a way to listen to music. the thing is they already had a few ways before the ipod came out. apple made them want and VALUE it.

 

as for a company making money versus another company not, its called business. some do good and some dont. boo {censored}in hoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
id definitely lump them together. they arent necessary. helpful yes. will you die without them? hell no. Also, many of these industries are constantly struggling. Airlines have a good year or 2 and then 8 bad ones. repeat. Television channels aren't necessary and all of them are trying to figure out what to do with the internet since ratings are dropping faster than ever. While these things may have a distinct purpose they do not all necessarily increase productivity. How has Comcast increased my productivity? if anything its decreased it.



Your view on music is nothing but optomistic. Its economic viability as an idea is zitch, the products you mention at least have some. Poorly run business is poorly run business, but at least those products can exist as a business. Music should never have become a business in the first place.


maybe people shouldnt give it away then eh? im not talking about illegal P2P trading. Im talking about bands giving everything away. As an engineer, many start out doing things for free to get some experience and work to show people. Well, all those people are used to you doing it for free so when you start charging for it they dont like it. They feel they're over paying. If you charged them in the begining they'd have a value for what you do. Its one thing to do a song for free and see if they like it and if so then get paid to do the rest versus doing the whole thing free and charging when they want to do the next record. if that makes sense....



I'm not talking about illegal music either... but the problem with this industry is that of saturation. There is only a small percentage of people who can actually get paid to do what they love doing, the rest just do it because they love it (how many free flights, phones, cable TV or computers have you received recently?). The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people related to music do it simply because they enjoy it, paid or otherwise. People won't stop making music because they aren't getting paid of it, and quite frankly most people would rather give their music away then let it on the shelf and go unlistened. That goes for things like album art or audio engineering. If they aren't in a position to make money from it, they aren't just going to stop doing it. A passion for anything isn't something that is reversable.


every sub industry has companies, they have to! who would buy an ipod if there wasn't any content to put on it? of course people need a way to listen to music. the thing is they already had a few ways before the ipod came out. apple made them want and VALUE it.



But marketing a device to play music on is completely different to making and marketing music. No company will give away a product like an Ipod purely because they enjoy making them. While the Ipod was a successful product, it not a case that can simply "fix the industry". Very few companies producted similar MP3 products compared to the number of people trying to make a living of making & recording music.

as for a company making money versus another company not, its called business. some do good and some dont. boo {censored}in hoo.



Indeed it is called business... And a business runs on an economy that is based purely on supply and demand. Welcome to the music industry, you either like it or lump it. The music industry supplies so many times more than what demand's exist. There is no "fix" and its only going to continue to slide towards worthlessness as the "supply" continues to grow. Like I said, the only way to increase profit in this industry is to shrink the "supply" through exclusion. Do us a favour, leave the industry so I can make more money :eek::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


To summarize, me too.

The long version: (just my two cents) I miss being excited about hearing a band live. These days I find myself doubting bands that I love before I ever get to the show.
Recording technology goes up = talent and performance level goes down.

I love all the songs I have on my laptop, most of which I downloaded for free but I'll gladly still spend my GOOD money for GOOD music. Although I don't think file sharing programs are really any type of reason for the suckiness of the actual music right now. I think that's just the big boys pushing more and more {censored}tily written material harder and harder down everyone's throat.

I'm pretty sure I'm about to vomit. I'm pretty sure everyone's about to vomit. After reading this thread it seems as though something unknown lurks on the horizon. Maybe Mr. Cobain rises from the grave tomorrow and begins his romp!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think someday we will see music that will require some sort of digital verification of rights. A device will only play back files for which it can verify the rights. Kind of like how a lot of software requires an iLok to run. There is clearly too much theft of copyrighted material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think someday we will see music that will require some sort of digital verification of rights. A device will only play back files for which it can verify the rights. Kind of like how a lot of software requires an iLok to run. There is clearly too much theft of copyrighted material.

 

 

hmm, funny Steve Jobs is trying to do the exact opposite of this and so far he's on the right track. EMI has agreed and the rest are seriously thinking about it. Getting people to buy more music wont happen when there are new additional burdens to deal with IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think someday we will see music that will require some sort of digital verification of rights. A device will only play back files for which it can verify the rights. Kind of like how a lot of software requires an iLok to run.

 

 

that's the current game plan of the industry: to slow down and control the newest (and far superior) format. it's not going to work. open files is the only way to go.

 

 

There is clearly too much theft of copyrighted material.

 

 

theft won't change. cd's are incredibly easy to steal or bootleg. and yet many people still buy them because they are accessable, legal, and part of our (current) cultural listening habit. if access and convenience to high quality digital files improves the industry will make a killing. messing with the files does the opposite and fights a losing battle. embrace the next medium. bank on high quality files. stopping shilling weak renderings and everyone wins. yes promote the hell out of 250k: most people aren't interested in downloading a free album of that size and would prefer directly having the files loaded onto there ipods, mp3 players, or phones.

 

I know you're thinking nobody can tell the difference between 128 and 250k---granted. but who can tell the difference between cd's and cassettes in a car stereo? it's the cultural habits that facilitate the industry and digital files are here to stay. higher quality digital files are easier to market and control as they are less convenient to download. charging extra for them is thus counterproductive to creating a new market.

 

with this in mind I propose the next store: a digital file 'musicbox' where the costumer orders music from one of many screens and has the tunes loaded onto whatever they're gadget of choice is upon checkout. receipts and inventory in the system would give them the ability to reload the files should said gadget be stolen or lost. think of it: a store with every song ever recorded and distributed (for those intelligent enough to make their music available to this digital distro system) organized by artist, album, era, genre, circulation size, geographic region, etc. this store could also offer servicing of gadgets, meaning a cell provider could simultaneously market it's phone/player, as that is the wave of the future. the iphone. or whatever.

 

this store has no shipping issues---it only needs a fast, secure, and reliable connection. this store doesn't need extra space to store inventory (saving alot of rent), has a small staff (also saving buckets) and because the costumer engages with a screen there is virtually no limitation to the amount of marketing/add space for releases. the store could make a killing on it's advertising banners alone, more then making up for the inevitable lower price points of digital files. and I would move that this store carry new releases in vinyl and give you free digital files of the release upon vinyl purchase. then I win.

 

just a thought. (a really damn good thought:))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As we've all agreed upon, it's not called an industry for nothing.
There are some interesting posts here and there in this thread and also some I don't agree with.

First of all, we can all agree on the fact that the internet is here to stay. Technology growing exponentially will make way for faster downloads of better quality to personal computers which will have bigger and bigger drives.
There will probably be no way to stop people downloading music since there will always be consumers who will find a way around codes on discs and place the recordings online.

So this is what's currently taking the industry down. But what had the industry itself become? Well, we can all agree on music being an artform. But the question is: has it remained an artform within the industry? I must say no.
For the major labels it's about the production, marginal expenses and optimizing the profit. Fair enough, it's a business. A business selling products has a key question to answer. How can I sell as many units of my product with the least amount of money put into it, thereby creating the biggest profit? Optimization. This usually means creating bulk and distributing large amounts. A good businessman knows that he can sell you sand in a desert if he talks it up enough. Promotion, hence, plays a key part.
The internet plays a great part and selling songs seperately was probably a great platform for the industry considering the situation.
But my main question here is, does all this not turn this artform into kitsch?
I fear it does.

So the industry is about selling a kitsch-ed form of music to the people through promotion and optimization. But what can we say about these people?
Some people like kitsch. We have kitsch furniture that people buy. We have 'kitsch' music that people will want to buy. And no matter what you bring into this, there will always be a group that will want it.
Then there are people who don't know anything about the 'artform' music. These will follow the trends and buy whatever is being promoted/whatever they're told to buy. I'm not about to go to an auction and bid on a painting not knowing anything about the time periods, the style, the painter, the type of paint that was used. I could bid $2, I could bid $20.000. I still wouldn't know what I'm essentially bidding on - what the true value is of that particular piece of art considering the style, period etc.

So then what do we need? We need an educated group of people to sell art to. Children nowadays grow up taking internet, mobile phones, tv sets.. everything for granted. They don't know what the world would be like without 'em. They need to be educated on the history of all the objects so they'll appreciate them a lot better since they now know the whole story behind it. I was young when we got our first computer. When I first got my cellphone, tv set, dvd player, discman. I value these objects since I remember them not being around AND how we used to do things before them.

Let's focus now on music: we'd need to educate people on the history of, indeed, all music. How it evolved throughout the centuries and then zoom in on different styles and how one followed the other. This way they will grow up appreciating music more, knowing its history and development. They will grow up feeling that supporting an artist and buying their work is more valuable and virtuous.
The industry should stop aiming for the 'average joe' to buy music, but aim for the 'educated (and virtuous) person'. This however is a sociological problem. Since we, in the Western world, have been focussing on the 'average' joe/person/student, our entire civilization has slowed down. Is changing all this possible? Probably not. It's all high hopes, but a shift of this kind is highly unlikely.
But I digress..

The process of creating music and sharing it will have to change. There will be a schism of sorts:

The industry and their label-artists should move away from massproduction and focus on developing a piece of art along with the artist where the experience of the art is non-downloadable. This may mean including more, not on, but to go along with the disc. The music and artwork WILL become easier to download soon enough. They'd need to expand and tickle other senses, perhaps.

The artists who.. really care for their music - who have a passion. Integrity. They should aim for their kind of people. People educated on music and/or people who share the same passion. These are the people that will still go out and buy your record just for the added value of having a tangible piece of art in their hands.
These artist must learn to do all the same things the industry does but on a smaller scale to a more selective crowd who'll appreciate your work a lot better.


There ya go, there's the, ermm.. 'short' version of my thoughts on the subject.
I'm not sure if we'll be able to save the majors of the industry. Sometimes a problem will just keep coming back. But what I do know is that mankind will most likely never stop making music and there will always be artists. And I, for one, will always aim to be in that long line of musicians who actually fitted well within the 'history' behind music. We can atleast save 'the music'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The industry should stop aiming for the 'average joe' to buy music, but aim for the 'educated (and virtuous) person'. This however is a sociological problem. Since we, in the Western world, have been focussing on the 'average' joe/person/student, our entire civilization has slowed down.

 

 

I really like your emphasis on education. But no textbook can teach anyone to love art. Many kids forced into loving piano grow up never wanting to play it again. It takes a teacher who encourages and good teachers need to be payed more.

 

Our civilization has vastly improved since it first started when you consider labor rights and the move toward female/racial equality. We've never been highly educated as a whole and I don't think that is going to change until we prioritize the national budget accordingly. You have to pay teachers. That's the bottom line.

 

 

The industry and their label-artists
should move away from massproduction and focus on developing a piece of art along with the artist where the experience of the art is
non-downloadable
. This may mean including more, not on, but to go along with the disc. The music and artwork WILL become easier to download soon enough. They'd need to expand and tickle other senses, perhaps.

 

 

I hate cd's. The physical artistic dimension is a little box. I don't like the glossy artwork and have seen enough fancy band photos to fill 10 lifetimes. I love vinyl but otherwise would simply prefer a digital file. Trying to hold back the digital age is similar to giving an 8track mouth-to-mouth. That baby is dead. The cd isn't going to die---but it is going the way of the cassette and I think the environment will be all the better for it. All those jewel cases---all those CDRs---they're not going to decompose anytime soon. I appreciate what you're saying though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh I agree with you! Like I said, it's highly unlikely that we'd be able to make such a shift anywhere in a short time. And indeed, we can't make people like any type of art.
However, I for one have a lot more respect and appreciation for cubism, for example, in paintings now that I know 'what it's about'. I went from 'what the hell is this?' to 'Oh, I see what he did there, I like it!'.

Perhaps it's just me, haha. I still like the album (discs). I can't wait till I get to hold the debut album of my band in my hands - look at it, feel it. Knowing the work I put into creating it, and now it's done. It's so much more closer and intimate holding the disc compared to just a bunch of files on a computer. Whether with all the artwork there or not. It's a bit romanticized, I know - but I feel that way about it. And who knows, maybe I'll get fed up with them in ten years. We'll have progressed a whole lot more by then. Lately I've been going for the dedicated DVD-audio discs, quality I can't quite find in mp3's just yet. Obviously that'll change in time, aswell.
But I'm still pretty new to the world of music, so I still enjoy having the artwork, the disc. And I really enjoy putting effort into creating something to go along with the disc that is, with current technology, non-downloadable.
And when producing this in limited editions, they sell really well. Making the product limited will add value. And if you're good enough, it'll sell.

But for the industry? I don't think it'd work. That's my point really. In order for the industry to work, it needs to create big amounts of units to sell and that's not working anymore so they switched to selling the files online at a price which is the optimum for their expenses. So we probably won't be able to turn this around and this will give rise to the indie artists. The indies could still sell their product if they keep the tangible product limited and 'exclusive' - maybe 500 units and that's it. And then perhaps switch to selling files online to match the demand. The music lovers will still buy the disc for the extra stuff and who just wanna hear the music can still download legally. The lesser the amount of units, the more valuable it'll become. If we were to find a homerecorded demo of The Beatles (which we won't, but as an example) there WILL be buyers. That recording is simply more valuable since it's so close to the artist and there's only one of it around. Knowing that they worked on the object you hold in your hand is an example of a non-downloadable experience.

And we'll hopefully cut back on the current amount of discs that are being produced.

And hey, I'm not saying I'm right, haha. This is just what I'm doing right now and it works well for my situation.

Thanks for your comment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Without physical product (like a CD) if the record industry was just selling digital content, it would freeze out a lot of consumers who aren't computer oriented.

 

They need to offer something that doesn't depend on a computer, but if they made that the adjunct instead of the principal distribution, the price would have to rise because you would lose the economies of scale.

 

HOWEVER,

 

Since we know CD prices are artificially inflated, that could probably be absorbed if the companies were honest about it. Yeah, right.

 

The other thing is that if digital files became the dominant distribution medium and you cut out all those middlemen, the price would really drop, and there would be less revenue to cook the books with. And we know the stellar record that the entertainment industry has with book-keeping matters.

 

Can

 

 

of

 

 

 

worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Without physical product (like a CD) if the record industry was just selling digital content, it would freeze out a lot of consumers who aren't computer oriented.

 

 

everyone has a cell phone. soon the phone will be the mp3 player. you won't need a computer if there are digital file stores. thus my idea for a 'musicbox' back on page 3 of this thread:). it will happen sooner rather then later. the price of flash drives is dropping and soon a small phone will hold 2 gigs of songs with no need to spin up. think of it---one gadget to rule them all.

 

 

They need to offer something that doesn't depend on a computer, but if they made that the adjunct instead of the principal distribution, the price would have to rise because you would lose the economies of scale.

 

 

you make a great point. the industry has never accepted a shrinking pricepoint. as you observe the cd is prime example of this and alone could justify several years of bad industry karma. however, digital files have a limitless market as digital stores will have access to music from everywhere in the world. one of my pals from europe already has mp3s from every band in my city. for free. now if you had a store there I bet alot of people less savvy then he would be willing to pay for them. my principal is this: if someone wants something enough to go through the trouble of stealing it several others will be willing to pay for it. as long as it's reasonable.

 

 

The other thing is that if digital files became the dominant distribution medium and you cut out all those middlemen, the price would
really
drop, and there would be less revenue to cook the books with.

 

 

in the last year I've seen my digital sales go from 10% of my earnings to 90%. although I don't see my teeny sales as indicative of the entire industry it is at the very least a metaphor for how rapidly the industry is changing. itunes is selling 250k files for over a dollar each. that's a killing. the only issue with single songs is the transaction with the bank is a set fee per transaction---so digital vendors will need to find incentives for consumers to spend more per transaction and/or simply sell alot of gift cards etc. the itunes card is the new target card in my book:) but to your point---the majors could all have their own mp3 stores and clean house---especially with back catalogues. the baby boomers are entering retirement age and should be happy to know they can repurchase the entire beatles' collection from the comfort of the recliner. and kids will be buying music and videos to put in their phones soon enough. I'm guessing 3 years tops.

/jonny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Without physical product (like a CD) if the record industry was just selling digital content, it would freeze out a lot of consumers who aren't computer oriented.


They need to offer something that doesn't depend on a computer, but if they made that the adjunct instead of the principal distribution, the price would have to rise because you would lose the economies of scale.


HOWEVER,


Since we know CD prices are artificially inflated, that could probably be absorbed if the companies were honest about it. Yeah, right.


The other thing is that if digital files became the dominant distribution medium and you cut out all those middlemen, the price would
really
drop, and there would be less revenue to cook the books with. And we know the stellar record that the entertainment industry has with book-keeping matters.


Can



of




worms.

 

 

This is all irrelevant. Why? because the exact same thing could be applied to the CD. People couldn't listen to CD's if they didn't own a CD player... just the same as vinyl records, or mp3's. Music reproduction will always rely on a carrier of some kind, whether its a computer, a CD player, an Ipod, a radio, etc.

 

Plus, they already have ways of providing MP3's to consumers who don't own a computer. At my local shopping centre there is a "vending machine" just for MP3's. Its essentially just a computer that you pop your money into and choose your songs, then download them onto your ipod. How long do you reckon it will be until a decent part of music stores turn digital, with just a bunch of computers? The music industry will continue moving towards digital media like the MP3... why? because if you can't increase profits by selling more units, you increase your profits by minimizing expenditure. Its simple business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What? Thats not an argument for music being economically viable. Who wouldn't love being paid to do something they enjoy? The fact that most will never get the opportunity to do that just outlines how much of a doomed idea the music industry is. "That industry" is entirely supported by evoking a dollar value out of an idea that can't sustain its value, simply because so many people love creating music. Not every musician wants to tour, not every musician wants to be on the top 40 hit... A lot of people even turned down payments because they would rather have creative control, or because they don't agree with the contractual duress. Most musicians who really love music don't care if they get paid or not... why? because music is an artform. Its a creative form of self-expression which doesn't have a pricetag. How many people do you know that work behind a bar or waiting tables to support themselves while they make music? I know plenty, and was even one of them for many years.

 

 

I know plenty of people who bartend or whatever to support themselves. My point is that the majority, id guess as much as 90%, of musicians would LOVE to get paid for music and make enough so its their only source of income. They ALL get paid now, just not enough.

 

its not about if they CARE if they get paid, it's whether they'd say NO to a deal where they WOULD get paid. beit forever or a day. Money is not why people make music. But people need money. even those who make music because they love it.

 

if its a creative form of expression that doesn't have a pricetag then why are there cover charges at clubs? i sure aint paying for the smell. If there wasn't a band there wouldnt be a cover.

 

If you expect musicians and engineers and producers to make recordings so no one will buy the recordings and everyone will see the band for free, you're insane. Or you expect everyone to get their cut from t-shirt sales because its tangible and not art.

 

im out. tired of repeating myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I know plenty of people who bartend or whatever to support themselves. My point is that the majority, id guess as much as 90%, of musicians would LOVE to get paid for music and make enough so its their only source of income. They ALL get paid now, just not enough.


its not about if they CARE if they get paid, it's whether they'd say NO to a deal where they WOULD get paid. beit forever or a day. Money is not why people make music. But people need money. even those who make music because they love it.


if its a creative form of expression that doesn't have a pricetag then why are there cover charges at clubs? i sure aint paying for the smell. If there wasn't a band there wouldnt be a cover.


If you expect musicians and engineers and producers to make recordings so no one will buy the recordings and everyone will see the band for free, you're insane. Or you expect everyone to get their cut from t-shirt sales because its tangible and not art.


im out. tired of repeating myself.

 

 

 

No, you aren't repeating yourself... you just aren't giving a valid explanation for opposing my statement that music should never have become a business. Simply saying that people need money, or that people would like to get paid to make music doesn't argue nor support the idea of music being an economically viable product. The very reason why most people cannot make enough money to support themselves off music is simply because music isn't an economically viable product nor a sound business venture. Music should never have become a business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Music should never have become a business.

 

 

from a philosophical standpoint this is a completely subjective statement and impossible to prove either way. only the artist's concience can be the judge IMO.

 

from an ecomonic standpoint this statement is simply untrue. I know people making money in almost every aspect of industry: from bands to attorneys, engineers, producers, writers, replication, web design, printing, PR/radio campaigns, disc jockeys, music video directors. I also know some (especially artists) who are disappointed with the way things are going. there are winners and losers in every business. it's also a huge US export.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

from a philosophical standpoint this is a completely subjective statement and impossible to prove either way. only the artist's concience can be the judge IMO.


from an ecomonic standpoint this statement is simply untrue. I know people making money in almost every aspect of industry: from bands to attorneys, engineers, producers, writers, replication, web design, printing, PR/radio campaigns, disc jockeys, music video directors. I also know some (especially artists) who are disappointed with the way things are going. there are winners and losers in every business. it's also a huge US export.

 

 

*shakes head* again, you are confusing the idea that making money in the industry makes it economically viable. It doesn't. Music should never have become a business simply because it cannot sustain itself. The music industry is a fad and as it excludes more and more people it will disappear. The continuing deterioration of this industry as an economically viable idea is enough to prove how true this really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
It's an evolution. It took a few years for cars to go to CD over cassette players. How long until computer interface and mp3 players are practical from Mercedes all the way to Hyundai? It will happen, but how long?



probably much sooner than we think.



OK, again, how long until that is dominant?




Minimizing expenditure for a record company means squeezing the artist.
:o



Minimizing expenditure for a record company means squeezing every and any aspect of the business that they can... CD production has probably already diminished over the last 5 years as MP3 sales increase. Obviously it isn't going to be a sudden change... but its going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
*shakes head* again, you are confusing the idea that making money in the industry makes it economically viable. It doesn't..



if you don't think there is going to be demand for music in 50 years I can understand your conclusion. but you're dead wrong. people love music enough to pay for it and they always will.

Music should never have become a business simply because it cannot sustain itself. The music industry is a fad



a strong statement with no objective support for it.

The continuing deterioration of this industry as an economically viable idea is enough to prove how true this really is.



first of all none of the bands I know are suffering from the dip in sales in the major label industry. physical sales are merely a part of an artist's revenue. people placing music in commercials, TV shows and movies can't download files and use them freely---they still pay artists and these SYNC licenses are a huge part of any artist's revenue. successful touring bands also make enough money to augment the rent and merch sales are and always will be huge as long as there are people with fifteen dollars to spare and the artist keeps the rights to these products.

to say being a band isn't economically viable would be more true IMO as there is and always will be more artists then the market can sustain. that's because being in a band is fun---even when the band lacks the talent, vision, or dedication to make a proper go of at it as a business entity. plus, bitching about the days they 'almost' made it or blaming everything on the evil cruel industry is part of the fun for most bands. years of entertainment.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love this thread. so I'm replying alot. it's not that I wish to disrespect anyone's views or bust anyone's chops. that said, to my understanding the original point of the thread wasn't whether or not the industry 'should' exist but simply how to help it survive. whether art and commerce mix is a philosophical issue that falls on dead ears (no pun) to the music industry (both the big one and the indie one) because there is just so much happening and so much money changing hands. so I wouldn't say the industry is dying, but rather that it's in a time of rapid change and the majors are scared. big difference IMO. what have major labels done for you that barsuk or any other indie with a solid business model can't do? seriously.

Music cannot be an Industry. Art cannot be function.



the physical evidence of art is the commodity. a digital file or cd can both be sold as there is supply and demand. art can be entertaining. art can be entertainment. but that's another discussion and hardly relevant to 'saving' the industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No, you aren't repeating yourself... you just aren't giving a valid explanation for opposing my statement that music should never have become a business.

 

 

actually i am, but i find it rather ammusing you can't understand this.

 

for whatever reason.

 

unless every label, artist, manager, producer, engineer, promoter, club owner, lighting guy, and security guard can not make ANY money by working for something at all music related it is economically viable.

 

as mentioned its an opinion. show me proof. i mean REAL proof. show me that no one has benefitted by either buying it, selling it, or creating it for profit and i'll believe you. BECAUSE THAT'S ECONOMIC VIABILITY. its making money.

 

but you can't.

 

a valid explanation for opposing your opinion would be my opinion. And my opinion is formed on where my paycheck comes from which happens to be from a business you think shouldnt exist.

 

let me put it another way......

 

If I can write or record or distribute music AND make money off of it, WHY DON'T YOU WANT ME TO?

 

the only answer i've found has been because others can't. ymmv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I really like your emphasis on education. But no textbook can teach anyone to love art. Many kids forced into loving piano grow up never wanting to play it again. It takes a teacher who encourages and good teachers need to be payed more.


Our civilization has vastly improved since it first started when you consider labor rights and the move toward female/racial equality. We've never been highly educated as a whole and I don't think that is going to change until we prioritize the national budget accordingly. You have to pay teachers. That's the bottom line.

 

 

One of the main problems with education is that we all assume that it should be paid for by landowners. I don't know how they do things in (wherever- fill in the blank) but here in Indiana we have a little vestage of feudalism called "property taxes", in which monies are raised at the point of threatened land-grabs and are used to supply the bottomless sinkhole that is called Public Education. So those of us who not only pay for these services, but also choose to educate our children at home, are left scratching our heads over the perceived inequities of such a setup, and also not a little disgusted with the continuous parade of ever-raising tax rates- and those are raised merely by fiat.

 

Both my parents were school teachers, btw, as are many aunts, uncles, cousins, and both of my brothers-in-law, so I'm not speaking from ignorance. There is no way to fix or even raise the standard of music education, let alone overall standards, until there is a way to measure and enforce teacher performance. And as long as the teachers' unions hold sway it will be business as usual.

 

Now back to the topic of this thread- as the music industry/business continues to morph (as it is a dynamic reflection of a very dynamic economy) the way people actually make ends meet will continue to make themselves available. I love the local music scene here- bands promoting themselves on their own websites and on "Myspace", recording really good-sounding CD's (some of them recorded here;) ) and local clubs pushing original music. I think that there will still be big expensive studios, big expensive label deals, and big expensive mortgages to pay. The latest article in EQ mag was so spot-on, BTW- the biz will not only survive, but flourish- only it will look alot different (obviously)- so better get on the love train and adapt, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

actually i am, but i find it rather ammusing you can't understand this.


for whatever reason.


unless every label, artist, manager, producer, engineer, promoter, club owner, lighting guy, and security guard can not make ANY money by working for something at all music related it is economically viable.


as mentioned its an opinion. show me proof. i mean REAL proof. show me that no one has benefitted by either buying it, selling it, or creating it for profit and i'll believe you. BECAUSE THAT'S ECONOMIC VIABILITY. its making money.


but you can't.


a valid explanation for opposing your opinion would be my opinion. And my opinion is formed on where my paycheck comes from which happens to be from a business you think shouldnt exist.


let me put it another way......


If I can write or record or distribute music AND make money off of it, WHY DON'T YOU WANT ME TO?


the only answer i've found has been because others can't. ymmv.

 

 

No, economic viability means that the industry can sustain itself. When I look around I don't see people rolling in profit... I see profits dropping. By your evaluation, you shouldn't even be in this thread because there is no problem to fix at all.

 

The other way you put it falls deeply into supply and demand. If you can't comprehend how this undermines economic viability in an industry that is based on an artform than its time to open a business textbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...