those musicians whose fans can't be bothered to engage in commerce will starve. Thus the old fashioned saying Starving Artist.
True. Which is why classical musicians depend on charitable donations to symphonies, symphonic halls and other institutions.
There simply are not enough classical music fans willing to buy recordings and tickets and t-shirts to support classical music.
The classical scene is really interesting at the moment - the live scene is relatively healthy but the recording side of the business, which always subsidised it, is in a real state of flux. The majors now concentrate on superstar artists so they've dropped recording contracts with a lot of leading orchestras. Meanwhile, the download sites are only just starting to understanding that classical fans buy music according to the orchestra/ conductor / soloists, not just the composer so only now that the catalogues are expanding the digital sales are going up, too. Orchestras ditched by labels are often now doing their own recordings and selling direct to concert audiences so i think the future looks better but, yeah, classical musicians earn a relative pittance...
It is quite possible for artists - like Radiohead have shown in the music industry previously - to do well financially without the aid of an antiquated industry leaching off them.
But would anyone have given a shit or enough people given a shit about Radiohead if they hadn't had the backing of a big label up to that point?
No one is denying the potential benefits of the internet to all many of creative industries, but 'my' creation is to do as I want with, not for self entitled people to say I should be the one to adapt to them stealing my creation. Yes it's King Canute like, but I don't begrudge people trying.
If you look at what Louis CK did with his latest Live release, which he produced, marketed and sold himself through his website, DRM free.
The Louis CK example, which I have seen argued many times, is ridiculous. Here's a guy that used the entertainment industry and corporate machine through a nationally televised TV Show, etc. to garner a following and then "independently" sold merchandise on-line.
Show me the comic that didn't have that initial promotion and recorded a comedy CD in his basement and sold 1/10th this amount and I'll be impressed.
In December of 2011, just weeks before the takedown, Digital Music News reported on something new that the creators of #Megaupload were about to unroll. Something that would rock the music industry to its core. (http://goo.gl/A7wUZ)
I present to you... MegaBox. MegaBox was going to be an alternative music store that was entirely cloud-based and offered artists a better money-making opportunity than they would get with any record label.
"UMG knows that we are going to compete with them via our own music venture called Megabox.com, a site that will soon allow artists to sell their creations directly to consumers while allowing artists to keep 90 percent of earnings," MegaUpload founder Kim 'Dotcom' Schmitz told Torrentfreak
Not only did they plan on allowing artists to keep 90% of their earnings on songs that they sold, they wanted to pay them for songs they let users download for free.
"We have a solution called the Megakey that will allow artists to earn income from users who download music for free," Dotcom outlined. "Yes that's right, we will pay artists even for free downloads. The Megakey business model has been tested with over a million users and it works."
It is quite possible for artists - like Radiohead have shown in the music industry previously - to do well financially without the aid of an antiquated industry leaching off them.
But would anyone have given a shit or enough people given a shit about Radiohead if they hadn't had the backing of a big label up to that point?
This is something that's been gone over before. Obviously it's not a business model that's going to work for everyone and still earn them their millions, but that's why I didn't really go into it but rather spoke on the young artists who are doing it their way, giving stuff away whilst still making money and selling music on a 'pay what you like' type deal on bandcamp. But If someone like Odd Future had decided to get some investment, away from a big label, and set up the infrastructure to sell their product straight to the customer in the same way Radiohead did, then sure, I imagine it's possible.
No one is denying the potential benefits of the internet to all many of creative industries, but 'my' creation is to do as I want with, not for self entitled people to say I should be the one to adapt to them stealing my creation. Yes it's King Canute like, but I don't begrudge people trying.
It's not that black and white an issue though. It's not 'I'm entitled to free shit' vs 'Piracy is theft'. It may have been that over a decade ago, but now we have a whole generation who've grown up with this system as the norm. And a new generation of artists who will reflect on ownership in a completely different way because of that.
I honestly don???t believe there is anyone on the planet that has spent more time and effort over the last 30 years seeking out good ???independently released??? music in the vinyl format. I have literally gone through millions of vinyl releases looking for stuff I like, not unlike what can be done online today, but with a lot more work, time and money involved. For every LP or 45 I find that I like there are 1,000???s that just don???t cut it.
I recognize that not many people would be inclined to do this just like I don???t think anyone but a very hard core music fan would take the time to surf the internet looking for independent artists they might like. People on a site like SS might be willing to do that but we represent the 0.0000000001% of music fanatics who would even attempt this.
If I???ve learned anything by searching through all that vinyl it???s that the independent releases are inferior to the major label ones. Not necessarily inferior material wise, but inferior in other important areas like recording quality, production, mix, etc. etc.. Don???t get me wrong, some of my favorite records are ones that are ???private pressings??? but each and every one of them would have benefitted quality wise by being produced by a ???professional???.
So today these independent musicians can not only record music as they did back in the day, but they can get a wider audience by using the internet???.I understand that concept perfectly. The problem is that most musicians are not marketers???they are clueless on how to promote their music to the people, just as those folks whose records I seek out were bitd. And if the major labels narrow their focus and gamble on fewer and fewer artists what we wind up with is a lower overall quality across the board.
My guess is that the artist who does properly market their music on the internet and gets a following will be picked up by a major label that sees them as a viable artist with an established audience. In effect the internet is doing the work for the label whereas in the past the major labels had to take their money and invest it in artists who then never did get the audience they hoped for.
The growing gap I foresee is that we will have major labels promoting ONLY the very commercial artists that make them big $$ and the thousands of artists who will release the figuratively ???private press??? releases on line and get lost in the dollar bins of the Internet. That middle ground will be lost and that is where many of us have found the best music to reside.
I am very curious about what those of you who take the opposite stance do for a living and if any of you actually create, market and/or sell a tangible item?
If you look at what Louis CK did with his latest Live release, which he produced, marketed and sold himself through his website, DRM free.
The Louis CK example, which I have seen argued many times, is ridiculous. Here's a guy that used the entertainment industry and corporate machine through a nationally televised TV Show, etc. to garner a following and then "independently" sold merchandise on-line.
Show me the comic that didn't have that initial promotion and recorded a comedy CD in his basement and sold 1/10th this amount and I'll be impressed.
He only just released it in Dec. 2011 and the sale figures came out around a month ago, so you must just be surfing the internet looking for arguments if you've seen have it argued many times.
I'm not sure what you're saying is ridiculous. Not at any point did I suggest that it would be a suitable business model for unknown comics to adopt. Quite the opposite in fact, I was using him as an example of how established media entities/outlets could update the distribution of their product.
But none of that is just echoing back your blinkered opinion on the subject matter so you make up your own strawman narrative.
I'm not sure what you're saying is ridiculous. Not at any point did I suggest that it would be a suitable business model for unknown comics to adopt. Quite the opposite in fact, I was using him as an example of how established media entities/outlets could update the distribution of their product.
So your point is that artists can use the corporate dollars to become established and THEN can market themselves independently from the corporation to make money.
This sounds like a great business model that lots of companies will line up to participate in.
So your point is that artists can use the corporate dollars to become established and THEN can market themselves independently from the corporation to make money.
This sounds like a great business model that lots of companies will line up to participate in.
So your point is that artists can use the corporate dollars to become established and THEN can market themselves independently from the corporation to make money.
This sounds like a great business model that lots of companies will line up to participate in.
Show me the comic that didn't have that initial promotion and recorded a comedy CD in his basement and sold 1/10th this amount and I'll be impressed.
Russell Peters.
Made $10 million last year.
While I would never take away all the hard work he's put into his career over the last 15-17 years. I'm pretty positive he would agree his big break was people downloading one of his routines from a Canadian tv show that was passed around the world.
After that the DVD releases came. And the movie offers...
I am very curious about what those of you who take the opposite stance do for a living and if any of you actually create, market and/or sell a tangible item?
I'm a technician at a major University.
But for 30 years my family was in the music biz. Specifically dealing with a DJ focus. Retail and wholesale. We even had a record label for a brief period that had a worldwide hit. Also a DJ magazine that was sold around the world for many years.
I myself spent a good portion of my life buying and selling music (For my family and my own side biz). Spending much of my time going around North America and Europe to do it. Even putting in time living in the UK.
I'd being willing to guess that over my time a million records have passed through my hands much like yourself.
That said. The writing has been on the wall for over 10 years. Things have changed. And no matter who wants things to go back to the days of old and continue things the way they were are in denial. For better or worse it is what it is. You can either make changes and adapt and grow or continue on the path. Best of luck to anyone who does either. But I think you don't give artist enough credit on understanding the business side of thing. While I agree in the early stages it's a massive learning curve. The youth of today are continually multitasking on a grand scale and I have little doubt it will be no problem as this process matures.
Rock, what's the point in engaging in conversation when you're only interested in hearing your own voice? There doesn't seem to be any point in trying to explain anything to you because you refuse to think about things outside of your myopic view of how you think the world is, or should be. It's you standing firmly on the side of righteousness and those who are not agreeing with you, are against you.
I see you're now mod over on Waxidermy, a website with plenty of illegal file sharing going on in it. If SOPA came in to force HCrink & co could've well seen themselves facing huge fines or even jail time. Would you be in favour of that happening?
Even the graphic designer of MegaUpload was arrested, and they're trying to extradite a young lad from the UK to face possible jail time in the US for starting a tv show link site. I don't know how they'd treat mods of illegal file-sharing forums but you may be liable.
It's not even about sharing illegal content. If the music industry had their way. Much of what Rock has been doing over his life time would have been illegal. It's only legal because people have pushed to keep certain acts legal. For the greater benefit of society.
I recognize that not many people would be inclined to do this just like I don???t think anyone but a very hard core music fan would take the time to surf the internet looking for independent artists they might like. People on a site like SS might be willing to do that but we represent the 0.0000000001% of music fanatics who would even attempt this.
You're way off with this, I think you underestimate how many people like to share music they've 'discovered'. It really doesn't take much at all for a talented independent musician to make something really good and put it on Soundcloud and post a link on Twitter and then see it get reposted on people's tumblr's which spreads until it's picked up by bigger blogs and keeps the buzz going until radio and more mainstream press take an interest.
I've seen this happen countless times with producers (i'm not as well versed in bands these days) which has led to them getting booked for gigs across the world and selling plenty of copies of their EPs and albums on Bandcamp.
The point is that people (i'm talking mostly about young people here) really don't have to go far out of their way to find these independent artists, it can be quite an organic process.
It's not even about sharing illegal content. If the music industry had their way. Much of what Rock has been doing over his life time would have been illegal. It's only legal because people have pushed to keep certain acts legal. For the greater benefit of society.
Yes, I don't doubt that at some point the people in the music industry have sat down and seriously tried to work out how they could tax the sale of second hand music formats. Maybe they'd just turn up at your door one day with the cops, and demanding millions in compensation.
It's not even about sharing illegal content. If the music industry had their way. Much of what Rock has been doing over his life time would have been illegal. It's only legal because people have pushed to keep certain acts legal. For the greater benefit of society.
Yes, I don't doubt that at some point the people in the music industry have sat down and seriously tried to work out how they could tax the sale of second hand music formats.
Actually, there was a very public campaign by Sony/WEA/Uni/CEMA back in the early 90's to do just this, with mega-gazillionaire Garth Brooks as the spokesman for the artists who were suffering under the plague of the second-hand market.
It's not even about sharing illegal content. If the music industry had their way. Much of what Rock has been doing over his life time would have been illegal. It's only legal because people have pushed to keep certain acts legal. For the greater benefit of society.
Yes, I don't doubt that at some point the people in the music industry have sat down and seriously tried to work out how they could tax the sale of second hand music formats.
Actually, there was a very public campaign by Sony/WEA/Uni/CEMA back in the early 90's to do just this, with mega-gazillionaire Garth Brooks as the spokesman for the artists who were suffering under the plague of the second-hand market.
Rock, what's the point in engaging in conversation when you're only interested in hearing your own voice? There doesn't seem to be any point in trying to explain anything to you because you refuse to think about things outside of your myopic view of how you think the world is, or should be. It's you standing firmly on the side of righteousness and those who are not agreeing with you, are against you.
.
Certainly you understand that the same exact thing can be said about you.
They're called opinions...and everyone has one....and sometimes they differ.
They're called opinions...and everyone has one....and sometimes they differ.
Which is why debate and discussion are a good thing and never a bad thing IMO.
Just because I differ on opinion. Does not mean I don't think highly of both you and Doc. Both of you have knowledge and experience that give valid and valued opinions. Doesn't mean mine are any more correct. I just enjoy the interaction of ideas and debate.
I honestly don???t believe there is anyone on the planet that has spent more time and effort over the last 30 years seeking out good ???independently released??? music in the vinyl format. I have literally gone through millions of vinyl releases looking for stuff I like, not unlike what can be done online today, but with a lot more work, time and money involved. For every LP or 45 I find that I like there are 1,000???s that just don???t cut it.
I recognize that not many people would be inclined to do this just like I don???t think anyone but a very hard core music fan would take the time to surf the internet looking for independent artists they might like. People on a site like SS might be willing to do that but we represent the 0.0000000001% of music fanatics who would even attempt this.
If I???ve learned anything by searching through all that vinyl it???s that the independent releases are inferior to the major label ones. Not necessarily inferior material wise, but inferior in other important areas like recording quality, production, mix, etc. etc.. Don???t get me wrong, some of my favorite records are ones that are ???private pressings??? but each and every one of them would have benefitted quality wise by being produced by a ???professional???.
So today these independent musicians can not only record music as they did back in the day, but they can get a wider audience by using the internet???.I understand that concept perfectly. The problem is that most musicians are not marketers???they are clueless on how to promote their music to the people, just as those folks whose records I seek out were bitd. And if the major labels narrow their focus and gamble on fewer and fewer artists what we wind up with is a lower overall quality across the board.
My guess is that the artist who does properly market their music on the internet and gets a following will be picked up by a major label that sees them as a viable artist with an established audience. In effect the internet is doing the work for the label whereas in the past the major labels had to take their money and invest it in artists who then never did get the audience they hoped for.
The growing gap I foresee is that we will have major labels promoting ONLY the very commercial artists that make them big $$ and the thousands of artists who will release the figuratively ???private press??? releases on line and get lost in the dollar bins of the Internet. That middle ground will be lost and that is where many of us have found the best music to reside.
I am very curious about what those of you who take the opposite stance do for a living and if any of you actually create, market and/or sell a tangible item?
Good points, thanks for taking the time to write this.
I understand that you were doing great things in the reissue market and gave up because of digital downloads.
Digital music, especially digital djing, have also hurt my used record sales.
Fortunately other aspects of new technology have made it easier to sell my records, so it is a struggle and things change.
I understand that, and am ok with that.
I would like to address what you wrote about "most musicians are not marketers".
The point is they don't have to be good at the business end. Sites like bandcamp.com do that for them. They do all the production and marketing. Uploading a song to youtube might be all the marketing someone with enough talents needs.
In the good old days artists without the guidance of a Col Parker often ended up with the likes of the Bahari Brothers or Paul Winley or Sylvia Robinson. Things have changed, they aren't better, or worse, but they are different. Some artists make it some don't. Just like every other time in history.
2 more points.
The idea that majors used to sign artists that would make them a lot of money so they could sign artists that were more deserving but not as commercial is BS. In the good old days the majors signed artist they hoped would make them a lot of money. Some did, some didn't.
And to the comic point you refuse to see. The point was the majors are slow to adapt to technology.
They're called opinions...and everyone has one....and sometimes they differ.
Which is why debate and discussion are a good thing and never a bad thing IMO.
Just because I differ on opinion. Does not mean I don't think highly of both you and Doc. Both of you have knowledge and experience that give valid and valued opinions. Doesn't mean mine are any more correct. I just enjoy the interaction of ideas and debate.
2 more points.
The idea that majors used to sign artists that would make them a lot of money so they could sign artists that were more deserving but not as commercial is BS. In the good old days the majors signed artist they hoped would make them a lot of money. Some did, some didn't.
I never said this...I said they used the money they made on very successful artists to record many others....and of course most of them failed...and of course they had hoped differently.
If Capitol had NOT had successes like the Beatles and Beach Boys they would have never taken the chance on many others because they would not have had the capital to reinvest with.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
b/w
"Can there ever really be justice on stolen land?"
Rock, what's the point in engaging in conversation when you're only interested in hearing your own voice? There doesn't seem to be any point in trying to explain anything to you because you refuse to think about things outside of your myopic view of how you think the world is, or should be. It's you standing firmly on the side of righteousness and those who are not agreeing with you, are against you.
.
Certainly you understand that the same exact thing can be said about you.
Do you mean me personally, or 'my side of the argument'. Cause sorry, I don't see it.
All I posted in this thread were my personal opinions on the state of affairs as they are today. I didn't try criticize and your or Doc's opinions on the matter.
I understand where Doc is coming from, I emphasise and would even agree with him on some issues. But as I've said several times, this is now a very complex issue, that in my opinion can no longer be easily separated into good/bad legal/illegal. And definitely not one that will be solved by trying to force things to go back to how they used to be 15/20 years ago. Especially not, if to enforce that, they end up imprisoning or bankrupting otherwise law abiding citizens in the name of some corporation.
All I posted in this thread were my personal opinions on the state of affairs as they are today. I didn't try criticize your opinions on the matter.
And you feel I did something different than this??
Sorry, I just don't see it.
Okem said:
Rockadelic said:
If you look at what Louis CK did with his latest Live release, which he produced, marketed and sold himself through his website, DRM free.
The Louis CK example, which I have seen argued many times, is ridiculous.
First you cherry pick, removing the statement from any context. Then you misconstrue it's intended purpose/meaning. Then you criticize your strawman argument.
And so it goes on. Repeat ad nauseum.
But hey I really should know better than to try and actually engage you in conversation. So I'm out.
Comments
The classical scene is really interesting at the moment - the live scene is relatively healthy but the recording side of the business, which always subsidised it, is in a real state of flux. The majors now concentrate on superstar artists so they've dropped recording contracts with a lot of leading orchestras. Meanwhile, the download sites are only just starting to understanding that classical fans buy music according to the orchestra/ conductor / soloists, not just the composer so only now that the catalogues are expanding the digital sales are going up, too. Orchestras ditched by labels are often now doing their own recordings and selling direct to concert audiences so i think the future looks better but, yeah, classical musicians earn a relative pittance...
But would anyone have given a shit or enough people given a shit about Radiohead if they hadn't had the backing of a big label up to that point?
No one is denying the potential benefits of the internet to all many of creative industries, but 'my' creation is to do as I want with, not for self entitled people to say I should be the one to adapt to them stealing my creation. Yes it's King Canute like, but I don't begrudge people trying.
The Louis CK example, which I have seen argued many times, is ridiculous. Here's a guy that used the entertainment industry and corporate machine through a nationally televised TV Show, etc. to garner a following and then "independently" sold merchandise on-line.
Show me the comic that didn't have that initial promotion and recorded a comedy CD in his basement and sold 1/10th this amount and I'll be impressed.
It's not that black and white an issue though. It's not 'I'm entitled to free shit' vs 'Piracy is theft'. It may have been that over a decade ago, but now we have a whole generation who've grown up with this system as the norm. And a new generation of artists who will reflect on ownership in a completely different way because of that.
I recognize that not many people would be inclined to do this just like I don???t think anyone but a very hard core music fan would take the time to surf the internet looking for independent artists they might like. People on a site like SS might be willing to do that but we represent the 0.0000000001% of music fanatics who would even attempt this.
If I???ve learned anything by searching through all that vinyl it???s that the independent releases are inferior to the major label ones. Not necessarily inferior material wise, but inferior in other important areas like recording quality, production, mix, etc. etc.. Don???t get me wrong, some of my favorite records are ones that are ???private pressings??? but each and every one of them would have benefitted quality wise by being produced by a ???professional???.
So today these independent musicians can not only record music as they did back in the day, but they can get a wider audience by using the internet???.I understand that concept perfectly. The problem is that most musicians are not marketers???they are clueless on how to promote their music to the people, just as those folks whose records I seek out were bitd. And if the major labels narrow their focus and gamble on fewer and fewer artists what we wind up with is a lower overall quality across the board.
My guess is that the artist who does properly market their music on the internet and gets a following will be picked up by a major label that sees them as a viable artist with an established audience. In effect the internet is doing the work for the label whereas in the past the major labels had to take their money and invest it in artists who then never did get the audience they hoped for.
The growing gap I foresee is that we will have major labels promoting ONLY the very commercial artists that make them big $$ and the thousands of artists who will release the figuratively ???private press??? releases on line and get lost in the dollar bins of the Internet. That middle ground will be lost and that is where many of us have found the best music to reside.
I am very curious about what those of you who take the opposite stance do for a living and if any of you actually create, market and/or sell a tangible item?
I'm not sure what you're saying is ridiculous. Not at any point did I suggest that it would be a suitable business model for unknown comics to adopt. Quite the opposite in fact, I was using him as an example of how established media entities/outlets could update the distribution of their product.
But none of that is just echoing back your blinkered opinion on the subject matter so you make up your own strawman narrative.
So your point is that artists can use the corporate dollars to become established and THEN can market themselves independently from the corporation to make money.
This sounds like a great business model that lots of companies will line up to participate in.
Exactly
Russell Peters.
Made $10 million last year.
While I would never take away all the hard work he's put into his career over the last 15-17 years. I'm pretty positive he would agree his big break was people downloading one of his routines from a Canadian tv show that was passed around the world.
After that the DVD releases came. And the movie offers...
I'm a technician at a major University.
But for 30 years my family was in the music biz. Specifically dealing with a DJ focus. Retail and wholesale. We even had a record label for a brief period that had a worldwide hit. Also a DJ magazine that was sold around the world for many years.
I myself spent a good portion of my life buying and selling music (For my family and my own side biz). Spending much of my time going around North America and Europe to do it. Even putting in time living in the UK.
I'd being willing to guess that over my time a million records have passed through my hands much like yourself.
That said. The writing has been on the wall for over 10 years. Things have changed. And no matter who wants things to go back to the days of old and continue things the way they were are in denial. For better or worse it is what it is. You can either make changes and adapt and grow or continue on the path. Best of luck to anyone who does either. But I think you don't give artist enough credit on understanding the business side of thing. While I agree in the early stages it's a massive learning curve. The youth of today are continually multitasking on a grand scale and I have little doubt it will be no problem as this process matures.
I see you're now mod over on Waxidermy, a website with plenty of illegal file sharing going on in it. If SOPA came in to force HCrink & co could've well seen themselves facing huge fines or even jail time. Would you be in favour of that happening?
Even the graphic designer of MegaUpload was arrested, and they're trying to extradite a young lad from the UK to face possible jail time in the US for starting a tv show link site. I don't know how they'd treat mods of illegal file-sharing forums but you may be liable.
The sacrifices we make for music.
:-P
You're way off with this, I think you underestimate how many people like to share music they've 'discovered'. It really doesn't take much at all for a talented independent musician to make something really good and put it on Soundcloud and post a link on Twitter and then see it get reposted on people's tumblr's which spreads until it's picked up by bigger blogs and keeps the buzz going until radio and more mainstream press take an interest.
I've seen this happen countless times with producers (i'm not as well versed in bands these days) which has led to them getting booked for gigs across the world and selling plenty of copies of their EPs and albums on Bandcamp.
The point is that people (i'm talking mostly about young people here) really don't have to go far out of their way to find these independent artists, it can be quite an organic process.
Actually, there was a very public campaign by Sony/WEA/Uni/CEMA back in the early 90's to do just this, with mega-gazillionaire Garth Brooks as the spokesman for the artists who were suffering under the plague of the second-hand market.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,307436,00.html
I wasn't really sure if Megaupload was the fastest, most secure file-sharing site...until Floyd Mayweather and Serena Williams told me it was. SOLD!
Yeah, labels have spent quite a bit of money and time trying to stop the 2nd hand market and the re-selling of promo material.
Speaking about Garth. I was just reading about him.
http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-23/ae/30656276_1_garth-brooks-colleen-brooks-oklahoma-hospital
From things I've seen. Just getting a room named after someone for $500 G's ain't easy. Let alone a whole building..
Laws evolve along with technology......and I'm a law abiding citizen first and foremost.
Certainly you understand that the same exact thing can be said about you.
They're called opinions...and everyone has one....and sometimes they differ.
Which is why debate and discussion are a good thing and never a bad thing IMO.
Just because I differ on opinion. Does not mean I don't think highly of both you and Doc. Both of you have knowledge and experience that give valid and valued opinions. Doesn't mean mine are any more correct. I just enjoy the interaction of ideas and debate.
Good points, thanks for taking the time to write this.
I understand that you were doing great things in the reissue market and gave up because of digital downloads.
Digital music, especially digital djing, have also hurt my used record sales.
Fortunately other aspects of new technology have made it easier to sell my records, so it is a struggle and things change.
I understand that, and am ok with that.
I would like to address what you wrote about "most musicians are not marketers".
The point is they don't have to be good at the business end. Sites like bandcamp.com do that for them. They do all the production and marketing. Uploading a song to youtube might be all the marketing someone with enough talents needs.
In the good old days artists without the guidance of a Col Parker often ended up with the likes of the Bahari Brothers or Paul Winley or Sylvia Robinson. Things have changed, they aren't better, or worse, but they are different. Some artists make it some don't. Just like every other time in history.
2 more points.
The idea that majors used to sign artists that would make them a lot of money so they could sign artists that were more deserving but not as commercial is BS. In the good old days the majors signed artist they hoped would make them a lot of money. Some did, some didn't.
And to the comic point you refuse to see. The point was the majors are slow to adapt to technology.
Same here...Cheers
I never said this...I said they used the money they made on very successful artists to record many others....and of course most of them failed...and of course they had hoped differently.
If Capitol had NOT had successes like the Beatles and Beach Boys they would have never taken the chance on many others because they would not have had the capital to reinvest with.
b/w
"Can there ever really be justice on stolen land?"
All I posted in this thread were my personal opinions on the state of affairs as they are today. I didn't try criticize and your or Doc's opinions on the matter.
I understand where Doc is coming from, I emphasise and would even agree with him on some issues. But as I've said several times, this is now a very complex issue, that in my opinion can no longer be easily separated into good/bad legal/illegal. And definitely not one that will be solved by trying to force things to go back to how they used to be 15/20 years ago. Especially not, if to enforce that, they end up imprisoning or bankrupting otherwise law abiding citizens in the name of some corporation.
And you feel I did something different than this??
Sorry, I just don't see it.
And so it goes on. Repeat ad nauseum.
But hey I really should know better than to try and actually engage you in conversation. So I'm out.