Members dmguitar0 Posted November 23, 2006 Author Members Share Posted November 23, 2006 Originally posted by BlueStrat Oversaturation of any market will kill that market. And the music business is perhaps the most oversaturated market there is today, thanks almost entirely to the internet and the lack of need for record companies to produce the music. So for some people the internet has been great, but for a large number it's been a hindrance in the bigger picture. I hadnt thought about it, but I agree. I dont like the way that venues act when I ask them their budget. Its like they didnt even realize I was gonna want to get paid or something...! This has to be the reason; a bajillion other crappy bands will do it for free so why pay this other band. Owners just want something to keep patrons drinking, and that can be had for little to nothing anymore. What can labels do about it? nothingWhat can we do about it? nothing I know ofLike BlueStrat was saying..But hey, it's the reality we have today. Gotta live with it or get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dysfunxeunol Posted November 25, 2006 Members Share Posted November 25, 2006 Check out thise dudes site:http://www.stevegordonlaw.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RenegadeMinds Posted November 27, 2006 Members Share Posted November 27, 2006 I like BlueStrat's take on things. There's a lot of hard work that some aren't prepared for. But if you're planning to make money online, then you really need to know that the web is about democritization and theft will occur. The problem there is that DRM is a myth. Audio is always out in the open at some point so it can always be pirated. (I'll leave out the technical rant - it's a pet peeve of mine...) On the good side, this can make for a lucrative opportunity with gigs and bookings. (Always look on the bright side of life!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Micky Z Posted December 1, 2006 Members Share Posted December 1, 2006 Originally posted by The Real MC Along came the internet and mp3, and the people revolted. Tired of paying $18 for a piece of plastic and frustrated by radio, they downloaded the product they really wanted en masse. The labels hated it because they couldn't own or regulate the distribution channel. They hated it because it rendered their business model obsolete. They hated it because radio, their primary promotion tool, became obsolete.Instead of adapting to the new business model.. I agree with most of what The Real MC says here, except for the end of the quote that I copied. There IS no new business model. There are new ways that people get hold of music, but there is no business involved in the process. Yes, there were (are?) excesses and egos and power plays and all of that related to the music industry in the previous business model, but at least there was business. You could follow the money flow - from consumers to distributors to labels to publishers to artists to the CEO's girlfriend, etc. I'm not going to argue the appropriateness of where the money stopped. But at least there was a flow. I've always wondered about how internet "sharing" could possibly work out in terms of cash flow, especially if there is no cash involved. I think people have a stereotypical view of labels, etc., as having lots of money that they're holding onto, always raking in more and conspiring to keep it away from the artist (hence the references to slavery, etc.). And when there was a cash flow, because cash was coming into the system, I would say yes, there was an imbalance between what the labels kept and what trickled to the artist. But when a song is "shared" among friends, with no cash going into the system, then the cash flow dries up, and NOBODY has any money - not the labels, nor the artists, nor the publishers, nor the producers and engineers, nor the CEO's girlfriend (different girl than last time). Labels didn't print the money they had, they only stole it. But with no money in the new "business model", NOBODY gets paid. And eventually the industry will die. As more songs are "shared" instead of bought, the music industry will wither and die off, piece by piece. So what will be left? I've always considered that the net result of the music "sharing" "business model" would be the deterioration of all artists to garage-band status. In such a world (i.e., without the music industry as we know and love/hate it) music will be recorded and produced primarily by individuals and bands, recorded at home, or in local studios for a fee, perhaps mixed and mastered for a fee by hired musical services, and then advertised by the individual artists on the internet, hoping that somehow there would be some notice of their efforts. There would be no cash flow to support the artists, because the fruits of their efforts are being freely "shared". The source of any money to create, support, and promote music would have to come from the artist's pocket, because there is no other money flowing into the system (like from record sales) to support such activities. No tours - they cost money. No national promotion - that costs money, too. No more producers and engineers except free-lancers, no more labels, no more advertising by labels, no more tours sponsored by labels, no more promotions by labels - nothing but individuals trying to make a little something to keep their car running, pay the bills, and maybe get out to play a gig somewhere close by. Everything would be supported by the artist, meaning that he/she needs a day job to pay the bills, etc. And maybe some really promising artists will fall by the wayside simply because at the end of their 40-45 hours they're just too exhausted to be creative. (EDIT: this is the garage-band tie-in. Some financing could be provided by local clubs from alcohol sales, if the band gets hired to play for money rather than food, but the local available talent pool limits the quality of the music to that of the standard local garage/bar band, so musical excellence must suffer. I'm not saying you don't have great players in your town, but are they Steve Morse? Rick Wakeman? John Bonham? But on a positive note, I wouldn't have to suffer through "talent" like the White Stripes or the other recent schlock booked on SNL.) This is democracy? Maybe. But it seems to me more like a trip back to the dark ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dmguitar0 Posted December 2, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 2, 2006 I contemplated this same thing: what will happen if this crap continues. I agree with you, Micky, that we will run into a huge problem with the current ANTI-business model we have going here.I personally dislike file sharing of my own music. Since it will eventually make its way into the realm of Limewire/Bitcomet should it become popular, then I wont allow it for download at all. I think major changes with music in a digital form need to be addressed. since, as RenegadeMinds said, DRM is a myth, something needs to be done, and i wish i knew what - but alas i dont have the knowledge or experience to address this issue appropriately. So I'll just shut up now.Also, thanks to everyone who posted their response to my survey, I got an 'A' by the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Swingfinger Posted December 4, 2006 Members Share Posted December 4, 2006 Can anyone please post some sites and resources because im doing a research paper too. Mine is a 10 page paper on how P2P Music downloading works. The arguements for and against it. If it really does harm record companies and musicians as much as they say, and also any other effects downloading music for free off P2P networks has had. I have been searching for sites but haven't found too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dmguitar0 Posted December 4, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 4, 2006 Originally posted by Swingfinger Can anyone please post some sites and resources because im doing a research paper too. Mine is a 10 page paper on how P2P Music downloading works. The arguements for and against it. If it really does harm record companies and musicians as much as they say, and also any other effects downloading music for free off P2P networks has had. I have been searching for sites but haven't found too many. a google search will reveal more, and faster. you oughta try it sometime but...ill post the links i have from when i researched it http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf#search=%22cd%20sales%20file%20sharing%22http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/nettwerk.htmlok thats enough giveaways for you! you dont have enough posts and im not gettin paid for it, so for me to do all the research...is lazy. go do a search..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Swingfinger Posted December 4, 2006 Members Share Posted December 4, 2006 Oh ya I forgot about google . Was that sarcastic? I can't tell. Anyways thanks for links. I actually spent about 3 hours straight yesterday trying to find good resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Swingfinger Posted December 4, 2006 Members Share Posted December 4, 2006 Wow! These are really helpful links. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dmguitar0 Posted December 4, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 4, 2006 As you know, the Chinese has long history around the world. You can see this item was carved very wonderful. This item was craved all by hand, so wonderful item ! It is a typical artware of that time. And it is very important and significance for investigating the old chinese culture. if you win it you will get good lucky. it is very wonderful. haha thats funny Was that sarcastic? I can't tell.not really... i guess it was more dickhead-ish than anything - but i didnt mean to offend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Swingfinger Posted December 4, 2006 Members Share Posted December 4, 2006 hey hey hey... I was just pointing out the obvious. Google is the first place I always go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Disco Cat Posted December 6, 2006 Members Share Posted December 6, 2006 Originally posted by chris carter People don't like admiting how much things hurt in this business right now because of ilegal downloading because so much of this business is "image". But I know plenty of big folks and when I chat on the phone with them and ask them how they are handling things they are really honest. It's not just that they say things suck horribly, that they are having a hard time paying their bills, etc. You can actually HEAR IT IN THEIR VOICE. It's to the point where I just don't like to ask folks anymore because it's so depressing. That's really lame that you're admitting that others would not admit the truth to the public because of image. Suckers who played the game of image don't get my sympathy, they made this grave. They worked an imbalanced industry by exploiting what was so rotten about it.Image players in any district of life are scum.Musicians have been screwed over by record companies all along - of course not all, but it's the ones who set that image who have built the atmosphere where musicians are hardly going to care that record companies are now out of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted December 6, 2006 Members Share Posted December 6, 2006 Originally posted by Disco Cat Musicians have been screwed over by record companies all along - of course not all, but it's the ones who set that image who have built the atmosphere where musicians are hardly going to care that record companies are now out of luck. All that would be wonderful if there were a realistic and profitable structure to take the record companies' place, but there isn't. The internet has allowed the peasants to rear down the castle without having any other means of survival in place. For all the greediness and self-interest the record companies indulged in, they did some good, too, which will be more apparent as time goes by and they aren't doing it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Disco Cat Posted December 6, 2006 Members Share Posted December 6, 2006 Peasants would be tools to allow things to continue as they were. It's not even death in freedom vs life in slavery. A new structure will grow and there is a chance that it will be improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted December 6, 2006 Members Share Posted December 6, 2006 Originally posted by Disco Cat Peasants would be tools to allow things to continue as they were. It's not even death in freedom vs life in slavery. A new structure will grow and there is a chance that it will be improved. I hope so, but I'm not optimistic. The only way for music to be profitable is for it to become something special again, which it currently is not. As long as anyone with a guitar and a home computer can make and market records, look for music to have value in the low to none range. When anyone can do it, it has no value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dmguitar0 Posted December 6, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 6, 2006 Originally posted by BlueStrat When anyone can do it, it has no value. I agree.supply and demand has a lot to do with this. theres so much music out now that indy artists are giving it away to compete, in the hopes of gaining their money back in ticket sales. what this does is drive the amount that people are willing to pay for an album way down. ticket prices and sales continue to rise however. at least that hasnt been tainted by the 'net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted December 6, 2006 Members Share Posted December 6, 2006 Originally posted by dmguitar0 ticket prices and sales continue to rise however. at least that hasnt been tainted by the 'net True about the prices, but sales are actually declining. And look who the top grossing live concert acts are from last year: "Pollstar estimates that revenues for all major North American concerts increased to $3.1 billion, up from $2.8 billion in 2004. Total tickets sold, however, continued a downward trend while average ticket prices continued to rise. The Top 100 touring artists sold a combined 36.1 million tickets as compared to 37.6 million in 2004. The average ticket price for the Top 100 tours increased to a record $57.00, up sharply over last year's $52.39."Here are the Top 20 Touring Artists of 2005. The first dollar amount is the total gross is in millions of U.S. dollars for all dates worked in North America. The second dollar amount is the artists' average ticket price.1. The Rolling Stones $162.0 / $133.982. U2 $138.9 / $96.923. Celine Dion $81.3 / $136.044. Paul McCartney $77.3 / $135.465. Eagles $76.8 / $104.176. Elton John $65.8 / $102.467. Kenny Chesney $61.8 / $54.638. Dave Matthews Band $57.0 / $47.099. Neil Diamond $47.3 / $63.0210. Jimmy Buffett $41.0 / $76.4911. Mötley Crüe $39.9 / $46.4812. Green Day $34.8 / $38.0713. Toby Keith $31.6 / $46.1114. Rascal Flatts $28.2 / $34.9215. Bruce Springsteen $26.3 / $81.0016. Gwen Stefani $24.2 / $54.4617. Coldplay $24.1 / $40.8018. Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers $23.6 / $38.0519. Barry Manilow $22.7 / $153.9320. "Anger Management Tour" $21.6 / $64.03See anybody new in there? I don't. Newer bands just aren't selling like new bands did 20 or 30 years ago. 3/4 of the bands on the top 20 list have been around for 15 years or more. What happens when they're gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted December 6, 2006 Members Share Posted December 6, 2006 {censored}, {censored}, and more {censored} The dream is over. Music is back to what is was... Free. We are doomed. Get a day job and stop thinking about making money with music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted December 6, 2006 Members Share Posted December 6, 2006 Originally posted by Poker99 {censored}, {censored}, and more {censored}The dream is over. Music is back to what is was... Free.We are doomed. Get a day job and stop thinking about making money with music. After 1920, when was music ever free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dmguitar0 Posted December 8, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 8, 2006 tard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nick Steen Posted December 10, 2006 Members Share Posted December 10, 2006 Originally posted by BlueStrat After 1920, when was music ever free? Haha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Staticnz Posted December 18, 2006 Members Share Posted December 18, 2006 The only reason I don't buy music is because it is too expensive for my financial situation. Recently whenever I've had a lot work I've known it could go away quite quickly (I'm a temp) and I'm not about to blow my income on insanely expensive CDs. Seriously, if I had more money I would buy music. My income isn't secure so I can't blow it on that stuff. I think it's fine to download music if you don't have a lot to spend. Plus there aren't enough good CD stores around, half of them don't have the stuff I want. Browsing the biggest CD store in my city is one of my greatest joys I just barely ever have a reasonable amount to spend there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dmguitar0 Posted December 20, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 its thought lines like this one that make some of us hungry musicians. this is a bad way to state it, because if you dont have the money to buy it...then you shouldnt "steal"/download it! you are almost likening this to a beggar who needs a loaf of bread for his family! its not like you NEED the music..just sayin'.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheLuxLife Posted December 20, 2006 Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 Originally posted by Staticnz The only reason I don't buy music is because it is too expensive for my financial situation. Recently whenever I've had a lot work I've known it could go away quite quickly (I'm a temp) and I'm not about to blow my income on insanely expensive CDs.Seriously, if I had more money I would buy music. My income isn't secure so I can't blow it on that stuff. I think it's fine to download music if you don't have a lot to spend. Plus there aren't enough good CD stores around, half of them don't have the stuff I want.Browsing the biggest CD store in my city is one of my greatest joys I just barely ever have a reasonable amount to spend there. Oh, that's great. Now I'm supposed to give music to you for free because you're broke, and can't get a job? HAHA...right. Just like the other guy said...You don't NEED music. Deal with it, or make some $. -J.P. LUX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Staticnz Posted December 21, 2006 Members Share Posted December 21, 2006 I'm not broke and I can get a job, just the ridiculous music prices + my extreme love of music (hence need to get a LOT of it) would render life unliveable. I buy music when I can, which isn't so often. What am I supposed to do, just go without music!? No way in hell. Don't need music!? Some music fan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.