Record Companies Give Up! We win!

[slight-return]

 

I didn't understand any of your premises. It looked like something a broken computer would spill out, nothing but jumbled language.

 

 

whoops! thought you were Poli-Sci and you mentioned SW dev ideas so I guess I kind of slipped into more analytical language figuring you had some exposure to that. Sorry abt that

 

[i had a funny toast at my wedding rehersal bringing that up...I was playing pattycake with my fiance while simultaneously talking with a guest abt multifractal resampling. The person overhearing it/toasting thought it was a funny incongruency that highlighted that facet of my life]

 

It looked like something a broken computer would spill out

 

It's kind of funny, a lot of analytical language, where precision is important, doesn't read like prose. Like think about a patent claim...one big run-on sentence (ye olde schoole guys will even tend not to use alternative language, won't describe negative spaces like holes, etc)

or some contract language (where qualifiers and modifiers should be diagrammable)

or...computer code! esp lower-level stuff

 

 

 

OK, let's see what we can do for ya

 

[This is where the inductive thinking (moving from the specific and applying it to the general) can be dangerous (inductive logic isn't "truth preserving" in the way that deductive logic is)...

 

 

Are you comfortable with the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning/logic?

 

it's what can lead to the monolithic "everyone" ("everyone knows" , "everyone would", etc) analysis based on an assumpion that "everyone" will be like "me" in use.

 

hmm, once we get past the inductive/deductive hurdle, I suspect this will be a little more clear - so we might want this to lay fallow for a bit

 

 

[there's an old stats joke abt this .. "The average person has about one testical and one breast"]

 

This is a comment on the monolithic (literally, "one stone" - one single, homogenous piece) part -- when we try to analyze bimodal (with two modes...humps in the distribution, like primary gender characteristic -- or even >2 modes by implication) distributions with single value tools like "average"

 

This is where "as an artist" or "as a musician" - starting from a position, esp an aspirational one and using that as an analytical platform

 

 

OK, here we have a strong perspective bias (which can already be trouble in analysis) as our analyst has a role within the population being analyzed and "as an..." is a starting point, so we are starting with the specific...then moving to the general, global, universal (as in "everyone knows")

 

"aspirational" points to strong self-interest in the results of the analysis (as the position aspires to a goal), this is why we have double-blind experimental protocols and such, why the marketing team's numbers can be a bit...shall we say "optimistic", we have recusal, and all that kind of stuff

 

 

- can really skew the legal analysis and can tend to cause stuff like biz practices of association and why the legal profession has the old thing about "an atty that represents himself has a fool for a client"

 

 

I think, this will also become a little more accessible when the other stuff is cleared up - might be best to leave this fallow too

[sabriel9v]

 

This is a comment on the monolithic (literally, "one stone" - one single, homogenous piece) part -- when we try to analyze bimodal (with two modes...humps in the distribution, like primary gender characteristic -- or even >2 modes by implication) distributions with single value tools like "average" This is where "as an artist" or "as a musician" - starting from a position, esp an aspirational one and using that as an analytical platform OK, here we have a strong perspective bias (which can already be trouble in analysis) as our analyst has a role within the population being analyzed and "as an..." is a starting point, so we are starting with the specific...then moving to the general, global, universal (as in "everyone knows") "aspirational" points to strong self-interest in the results of the analysis (as the position aspires to a goal), this is why we have double-blind experimental protocols and such, why the marketing team's numbers can be a bit...shall we say "optimistic", we have recusal, and all that kind of stuff - can really skew the legal analysis and can tend to cause stuff like biz practices of association and why the legal profession has the old thing about "an atty that represents himself has a fool for a client" I think, this will also become a little more accessible when the other stuff is cleared up - might be best to leave this fallow too

 

 

...where do you get your weed from?

[slight-return]

...where do you get your weed from?

 

 

"from you Dante" [i thought that movie was kinda funny]

 

 

not really my scene - no biggie, just different time of life, different things going on and all that

 

 

I dig you mean it as just a dismissal - that's alright -- I mean, you're more like the uni student time of life so the frustration threshold for some of that kind of thinking (checking the perspective, running a little QA on our thoughts, all that) can be a bit lower - like with the community CD project where drafting up the plan seemed like a barrier that just wasn't going to get negotiated or where looking into legal for the political event seemed unneeded, etc - you are in your, what, very early 20s...it's part of those days

[BlueStrat]

 

You can go and buy CD's without hearing anything by the artist first but I personally don't like doing this.

 

 

That's fine. But you don't have to illegall download an artist to hear their music, do you? Like I said before, there isn't hardly a band out in the past 6 years that doesn't have samples or a couple of free tracks on the internet.

[HairyScaryMark]

 

Hairy, I'm curious as to what type of music you play? I ask this because it seems that two sides have polarized. The people who are hardcore against downloading within the forum usually play music that's more traditional in terms of format ie blues, classic rock, country, whatever. But the few who don't have a problem with downloading play less traditional forms ie electronic music, ambient genres, indie music, etc. Ultimately what style of music has a great influence on how you perceive things within the industry. You have to make the right moves according to your sound after all.

 

 

I play a range of music but the one I suppose that has been my biggest interest is prog and power metal. This music is mainstream in some European and Latin American countries but to have any level of success elsewhere it is going to rely on the internet. I don't expect people to pay for all the music they listen to simply becuase I don't believe most people can afford this while also listening to a healthy quantity and variety of music.

 

I also play jazz and classical music and enjoy progressive and instrumental rock as well as some folk. I try to hear new things all the time. Something I heard recently was Bulgarian Wedding and Folk dance music. crazy stuff.

 

Last time I tried to buy a substancial quantity of Jazz CD's I was suprised by the complete lack of selection in the jazz department of the biggest CD shops in my city. I seem to recall they didn't even have a Frank Gambale CD.

 

Maybe it does depend on the music you are intersted in but I think many people would discover many differnet types of music they maybe wouldn't have concidered listening to before if they were to download music in mass quantities. I Tunes will not encourage you to discover so many new things like one of these peer to peer unregulated services will

[Dean Roddey]

If people really were just downloading music to discover new things that they *went and bought*, that would be one thing. But we all know that that's not what is going on. So many of the kids out there don't buy squat. They aren't looking to expand their horizons, they are looking to fill up their iPod, and they are squeezing musicians of their profession slowy but surely. And I can pretty safely state that the vast bulk of them are not downloading obscure jazz.

[BlueStrat]

 

Last time I tried to buy a substancial quantity of Jazz CD's I was suprised by the complete lack of selection in the jazz department of the biggest CD shops in my city. I seem to recall they didn't even have a Frank Gambale CD.

 

 

 

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS254US254&q=Frank+Gambale+CD

 

 

Ever hear of Google?

 

And I still don't see where this means, since the record store doesn't stock what you're looking for, that you need to downoad free tracks. It's a logical disconnect.

[sabriel9v]

 

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_enUS254US254&q=Frank+Gambale+CD Ever hear of Google? And I still don't see where this means, since the record store doesn't stock what you're looking for, that you need to downoad free tracks. It's a logical disconnect.

 

 

I understand where Hairy is coming from. I think we've got to first look at his background. Do we know how much disposable income he has to spend on cds each month? How much of that income is allocated towards cd purchases? What's his age range? How many concerts does he go to? We don't know if he's just downloading and nothing else.

 

But I can emphathize with him. I don't want to search high and low for a copy of Alice Coltrane's Universal Consciousness or a Brigitte Fontaine record. I can download a few of the tracks and when I've got the money pay import costs or whatever. It's a shame so many kids are downloading radio hits and club tracks. They should go to youtube and stream all that crap. It's all there. But honestly, one of the best legal downloading outlets was Burn Lounge...before the scandal that is. But Burn Lounge had EVERYTHING and it was cheap like itunes. Plus you didnt need an ipod or have to download a program.

[BlueStrat]

 

I understand where Hairy is coming from. I think we've got to first look at his background. Do we know how much disposable income he has to spend on cds each month? How much of that income is allocated towards cd purchases? What's his age range? How many concerts does he go to? We don't know if he's just downloading and nothing else. But I can emphathize with him. I don't want to search high and low for a copy of Alice Coltrane's Universal Consciousness or a Brigitte Fontaine record. I can download a few of the tracks and when I've got the money pay import costs or whatever. It's a shame so many kids are downloading radio hits and club tracks. They should go to youtube and stream all that crap. It's all there. But honestly, one of the best legal downloading outlets was Burn Lounge...before the scandal that is. But Burn Lounge had EVERYTHING and it was cheap like itunes. Plus you didnt need an ipod or have to download a program.

 

 

Hey, I completely agree with you. You can find virtually ANYTHING online today.

 

He seems to be saying that since his record store doesn't carry something, he's using that as justification to steal it by downloading it. If I'm wrong in that assumption, I hope he'll clear it up, but that's what I see him saying. I assume he has money to pay for ordering a record online, if he can pay for them at record stores.

[Dean Roddey]

Yeh, I mean I don't have the money for a Ferrari, but I'm not going to steal one. There is a very widespread attitude out there on the net that someone just skipped over the whole moral lesson about how you can't just have anything you want. If you can't afford it, then do without, like we do in every other area of life. If you just want to listen to a selection of music, there are plenty of legal places to hear stuff online or on the radio or on streaming radio stations.

[BlueStrat]

 

Yeh, I mean I don't have the money for a Ferrari, but I'm not going to steal one. There is a very widespread attitude out there on the net that someone just skipped over the whole moral lesson about how you can't just have anything you want. If you can't afford it, then do without, like we do in every other area of life. If you just want to listen to a selection of music, there are plenty of legal places to hear stuff online or on the radio or on streaming radio stations.

 

 

My point precisely. If you want to be exposed to new music, you don't have to download it illegally to do so in 2008. It's a lame excuse for stealing.

[thedolaon]

 

My point precisely. If you want to be exposed to new music, you don't have to download it illegally to do so in 2008. It's a lame excuse for stealing.

 

 

agreed! very lame excuse lol.

 

that's not even funny how lame that is lol. If someone told me that excuse, i'd slap them.

[sabriel9v]

Hey, I completely agree with you. You can find virtually ANYTHING online today. He seems to be saying that since his record store doesn't carry something, he's using that as justification to steal it by downloading it. If I'm wrong in that assumption, I hope he'll clear it up, but that's what I see him saying. I assume he has money to pay for ordering a record online, if he can pay for them at record stores.

 

You're right. But that's not the only excuse I'll hear a lot of people using about their downloading habits. Many people think the artist doesn't get the money anyway because the label is raping them of their royalties, so who care if they download? The artist isn't making full profit anyway. And many artists have complained and backed these very beliefs.

 

But I can't be a hypocrite, I download myself and most of the time I don't feel bad about it

[HairyScaryMark]

There is far less excuse for downloading music illegally now than there was just a few years a go.

 

Also, most people have faster internet connections now so the frustration of music taking a long time to download is mostly a thing of a past.

 

I remember reading this article a few years a go (2005) that says people who download music illegally, on average spend 4 1/2 as much on digital music as those who do not

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/netmusic/story/0,,1536887,00.html

 

Later on in the article it also reads

'Advocates of filesharing have pointed to disputed research from two US economists who last year studied downloading behaviour. Felix Oberholzer, a Harvard Business School professor, and Carolina academic Koleman Strumpf concluded that "downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero".'

 

The difference is a Ferrari is phyiscal property. Music downloading does not actually involve stealing physical property. Merely replicating it. Same with

 

I buy CD's online but my point was. You really have to go out of your way sometimes to find certain types of music.

 

I haven't bought a lot of CD's this last year. Properly only about 10 or so. plus 50 I got as part of a classical music set. I hope to increase this by about 50 this year.

 

I attend gigs as often as I can. This mostly involves travelling to Glasgow and in some cases I have even travelled to England.

 

Planning to go to 3-4 in the next few months.

 

I have tickets for a festival in England later this year and may even travel to Germany for another festival.

 

I saw live music every week on average for about 6 months of 2005.

 

Also, just becuase someone downloads music doesn't mean they would have bought it otherwise. It doesn't follow that it is a direct loss of earnings in many cases.

 

Only in the last couple of years I have noticed most bands putting free mp3s of their music on their websites. Up until then, the only way you could hear their music would be to download their songs illegally.

 

I still believe that most people aren't going to spend less on music just becuase they download it instead. Some of the people I know who are most passionate about music also download it illegally as well as spending substancial amounts of money on CD's.

[BlueStrat]

You're right. But that's not the only excuse I'll hear a lot of people using about their downloading habits. Many people think the artist doesn't get the money anyway because the label is raping them of their royalties, so who care if they download? The artist isn't making full profit anyway. And many artists have complained and backed these very beliefs. But I can't be a hypocrite, I download myself and most of the time I don't feel bad about it

 

Well, I'm sure you know that there is a difference between little profit and no profit. But I can assure you, illegal downloading is hurting the artist far more than the record companies. And ultimately, it hurts the consumers, too. Here's why:

 

What no one seems to be aware of, is that when downloads eat into sales, first of all, the record company still recoups their costs, and it is the artists who make nothing until all costs are paid back. Keep that in mind when you think you're sticking it to the record company.

 

Secondly, if the record company can't recoup their costs or make a profit, those bands you like so much won't be making a second album. They'll be back to DIY. WE all know how well that works out most of the time.

 

Thirdly, you're only ensuring that record companies put out more safe, generic pop crap that will sell enough to offset the loss of piracy. I hope you guys like Brittney Spears type stuff and pop country, because it's what is subsidizing theft and currently about the only thing making record companies dough.

 

Of course, the average pimple faced 16 year old in his bedroom doesn't think about this, and doesn't have to. He's used to getting pretty much whatever he wants when he wants it in our self-indulgent boomer-ran culture, so why should music be any different? I just wish that everyone would remember the old axiom that my dad always drilled into me as a kid: "whenever someone gets something for nothing, someone else usually gets nothing for something." And the fact that ultimately, the only one pirates are hurting is themselves. But only after everyone else has been hosed.

 

 

 

Please, keep in mind, I'm NOT talking about free tracks bands put up themselves.

 

Oh, and one more thing: You know that whole 'recorded music should be free, because the real money is in touring' mantra that keeps coming up here?

That's completely ass backwards. Bands have always toured to promote the sales of records. Yeah, the cream of the crop can make good money touring (though the cost of putting on the shows they do means they don't make anywhere near as much after expenses as everyone seems to think they do). But enrty level and even midlevel bands tour to sell records, because they know that for every concert they play, they will get a huge on-air push and album sales will climb.

 

Well, until now, that is.

[Li10]

I'm the only person I know who's under 20 and hasn't downloaded music illegaly. Pretty weird, that is. I prefer having albums anyway - most of the bands I like, apparently spend weeks sorting out the track sequencing on their albums - surely they do that for a reason, not just so someone can download their single and forget about them a week later

 

and I think Bluestrat is right about touring, I mean, and I'm very young and a complete noob, but whenever I see something about touring it often refers to touring as "promotion". This "new business model" is actually starting to piss me off. It's not changing for the better...

 

 

We don't win whatever way you look at it.

[Dean Roddey]

 

Also, just becuase someone downloads music doesn't mean they would have bought it otherwise. It doesn't follow that it is a direct loss of earnings in many cases.

 

 

This the kind of logic one would expect from a sleazy lawyer. And it does result in indirect losses, because it contributes to a culture of disrespect for intellectual property. When your friend sees that you have all this music and still have money left over to do other things, while he did the right thing and spent his money on the music he has, you just encourage him to do the same thing, else he feels he is at a disadvantage. And he's carrying you on his back.

 

 

I remember reading this article a few years a go (2005) that says people who download music illegally, on average spend 4 1/2 as much on digital music as those who do not

 

 

I find that pretty ridiculous. Given how many people are downloading, if they spent 4.5 times more than others on music, then the music industry would be making as much money as Exxon, not going downhill. Where do these people come up with such stuff, when it clearly is not remotely possible ?

[BlueStrat]

 

Where do these people come up with such stuff, when it clearly is not remotely possible ?

 

 

They pull it out of their ass to make themselves feel better.

[HairyScaryMark]

I typed "downloading effects music sales" into google and on the first page the majority of websites said music downloading has no effects on music sales and some even said it had a positive effect.

 

I am sure there are many people saying otherwise either way it is not conclusive.

 

CD sales can fall for many reasons. For all we know, they could have fallen further if people weren't downloading music illegalyl and therefore maintaining an interest in music. Many people think live music and rock music came into fashion again around 2001 when music downloading also was first taking off in a big way.

 

I only bought my first few CD's after downloading music on the internet. Stuff I hadn't heard until I downloaded it.

[Dean Roddey]

The internet, despite supposedly being an open source of information and opinion, is not a balanced source. Almost everyone on the internet is anti-RIAA and buys completely into the downloader's mantra and they would never quote any study that showed anything different. But if anyone says that it doesn't have an effect, their study will be quoted all over the internet in days.

[sabriel9v]

 

I typed "downloading effects music sales" into google and on the first page the majority of websites said music downloading has no effects on music sales and some even said it had a positive effect. I am sure there are many people saying otherwise either way it is not conclusive. CD sales can fall for many reasons. For all we know, they could have fallen further if people weren't downloading music illegalyl and therefore maintaining an interest in music. Many people think live music and rock music came into fashion again around 2001 when music downloading also was first taking off in a big way. I only bought my first few CD's after downloading music on the internet. Stuff I hadn't heard until I downloaded it.

 

 

Illegal downloading has definitely impacted the record industry. It has damaged it far more than if the downloading had never taken place. But I still see your points. No one is absolutely sure of someone else's intentions. They may download, but you don't know their exact rationale and what their other purchasing and lifestyle habits are.

[sabriel9v]

I'm the only person I know who's under 20 and hasn't downloaded music illegaly. Pretty weird, that is. I prefer having albums anyway - most of the bands I like, apparently spend weeks sorting out the track sequencing on their albums - surely they do that for a reason, not just so someone can download their single and forget about them a week later and I think Bluestrat is right about touring, I mean, and I'm very young and a complete noob, but whenever I see something about touring it often refers to touring as "promotion". This "new business model" is actually starting to piss me off. It's not changing for the better... We don't win whatever way you look at it.

 

 

"We don't win whatever way you look at it."

 

I keep saying this, but I don't think anybody believes me. If you want to "make it" and get out there as an artist, you have to touch and change people's thought processes. It's more than just playing shows and selling cds, you've got to have top game as a businessperson or more specifically as a kind of pr agent. You've gotta push a social movement. Name any popular artist and I bet there was some sort of gimmick or promotion done to secure their status.

[kurdy]

 

"We don't win whatever way you look at it." I keep saying this, but I don't think anybody believes me. If you want to "make it" and get out there as an artist, you have to touch and change people's thought processes. It's more than just playing shows and selling cds, you've got to have top game as a businessperson or more specifically as a kind of pr agent. You've gotta push a social movement. Name any popular artist and I bet there was some sort of gimmick or promotion done to secure their status.

 

 

I don't think anyone would argue with you there. Problem is, most musicians aren't business-minded people, and really don't have a knack for it. Lucky if they are mediocre at it. People go to college to learn about business, marketing, management skills, yet nowadays musicians are supposed to know all this stuff automatically.

 

The people who say that now is a great time for musicians, because it is possible for the artists to have control--how many artists actually know what to do with that control now that they have it? Most are simply treading water. And the one's that are currently successful most likely aren't doing it all themselves.

[sabriel9v]

 

I don't think anyone would argue with you there. Problem is, most musicians aren't business-minded people, and really don't have a knack for it. Lucky if they are mediocre at it. People go to college to learn about business, marketing, management skills, yet nowadays musicians are supposed to know all this stuff automatically. The people who say that now is a great time for musicians, because it is possible for the artists to have control--how many artists actually know what to do with that control now that they have it? Most are simply treading water. And the one's that are currently successful most likely aren't doing it all themselves.

 

 

I suppose that's one of the major factors that separates the ones who "make it" from the ones who can't. You've got to have some fundamental knowledge about business, whether you obtain it in an academic environment or as a road scholar.

[Dean Roddey]

That's not necessarily true. A good manager can do that for those artists who just have no business sense. It would be better if they did, so as to insure that the manager is really a good manager, and not ripping them off, but I'm sure that there have been plenty of well known artists who depended very heavily on their manager to handle the business aspects of their career, at least the details of implementing it.