The Eagle's Walmart Deal - WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?
-
chris harris
- speech impediment
- Posts: 4270
- Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
- Location: Norman, OK
- Contact:
-
radiationroom
- steve albini likes it
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:14 pm
- Location: The Glow-In-The-Dark Abyss South of TMI
- Contact:
Which is why the industry should move away from the jewel box and into library boxes, such as what Sony used for their Mastersound series for many years. Alternately, DVD movie sized packaging with nice lyric/artwork books included with the disks would be nice as well. Either way, the jewel box needs to be done away with simply because they break too easily, and people hate that. :ar15:dynomike wrote:As long as the value is increased in the physical product, there will be a market for it..
Multiformat on dual-layer BlurayDisc, with one layer being redbook CD and the other layer being 5.1 surround and computer multimedia, offers lots of potential. Bluray offers lots of content possibilities, and in todaze age, producing value-added content {like concert footage, back stage pix, band interviews, etc} costs next to nothing.
Or HD-DVD. The pros and cons of the two HD formats would make another nifty topic....
-
MoreSpaceEcho
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
totally. if, as jeff robinson has established, the only artists worthy of making records are those with $15,000 or more, i think it stands to reason that the only people worthy of hearing said records are those who can afford to drop at least 100 bucks.subatomic pieces wrote:I wanna make music that can only be appreciated by people with a Louis Vuitton bag strapped over their $800 cashmere sweater. Isn't that why we all got into this in the first place?
i don't get this boutique idea at all. i mean, sure if you wanna make some nice packaging i'm all for it, but people do that already. and those cds don't cost more than any other. why should i have to pay $50 for some band's record when i know they cost a buck each to make? that's retarded. cds are too expensive already. $10 is a totally fair price, imo. especially if that money is actually going to the bands.
anyway, someone please tell me how one record is worth $50 and another is worth $5.
Duplication costs are not the only costs involved in making a record, nor should they be the sole factor of its retail value.MoreSpaceEcho wrote:anyway, someone please tell me how one record is worth $50 and another is worth $5.
Making Efforts and Forging Ahead Courageously! Keeping Honest and Making Innovations Perpetually!
Wow.
Sounds like a lot of money issues here. Keep investigating your artistic selves and you'll find that you don't actually hate money, just those who think it can do things it can't (and yo may not even hate them). You might even admit that you want more money in your life. I do.
Since a few people have taken the opportunity of my personal, and real examples to take a few pot shots, I'll mention that for plenty of years I was broke and poor and drunk and thrift store'd out and lived in apartments that had rats, mice, silverfish and kitchen floors that were falling into the basement and refrigerators with no shelves and self-renewing pools of muck on the bottom (and hot water-heaters that shot flames and cars that had to be hotwired to start). I worked as a bike messenger and lived on pasta, soy sauce and sour cream and was about as down with the "scene" as one can get--before it was as widely accepted as it was today and before it made any money at all. (And even before you could make any money being a cool graphic designer or web programmer). Before any indie or punk bands expected a dime and when choosing punk really cost you money. (Now it just kind of costs you money).
So if you need my "scene cred" alongside my sweater price to hear what I'm saying, there you go. I also probably had a chain wallet before you heard of the Pixies.
(And likely got rid of it before you heard of Pavement. --You probably still haven't heard of Swiz, Rites of Spring, Channnel 3, the Queers, Unwound, Come and The Frogs.)
With that said, there have also been some intelligent additions to the discussion, to which I'll respond.
1) To the guy who said why don't I charge $50,000 for my post--I'm actually writing a book about it and I plan to make a whole lot more than that off it. The economic information that content has been overlooked by the market is of incalculable value to business, culture, society in general and ARTISTS iN PARTICULAR. Why I give it to shmos like you for free is that there are intelligent, respectful, mature folks like Justin and some others who are actually interested in the subject--although don't think I don't ask myself that same question every time I suffer through an "ass engineer" post sent between two guys who might as well just be IMing each other.
I've written tons more about it on my blog: whiteg.com.
This information will create millions and millions of more enjoyable and higher paying jobs for people who value artistry over science, management and numbers--which I feel is worth any quantity about bitchy barbs about leopard-print thongs. What we're talking about here is parity for people who can relax reason and articulate emotion with those who can suppress emotion and articulate reason. I feel that is of paramount importance.
It will have the added effect of allowing millions to make a living without the level of environmental destruction that participating in the current economy requires. (As the current economy values material quality and not artistic quality, even its most artistic participants must consume vast material resources to pay their bills. --This is another way of saying that if a band can't make money sitting in a studio thinking up songs and using some electricity, then it must hit the road, sell beer and burn gas, use tires and 18 wheelers, sell cotton shirts printed with oil based inks, promote cars (like Dylan) or video games (like Slash), heat arenas and put on light shows with lots of electricity, fly to festivals, etc..) The environmental part of the equation alone is enough reason to float prices, but I'd rather appeal to people's desire than their guilt, so I usually don't mention it.
What's funny is that those who would benefit the most from floating prices find them so repulsive and offensive. Kind of like Soviet era factory workers holding on tight to their state-funded housing and miserable health care. They want scene/Party cred--to be cool--over health insurance and regular dental care.
Musicians and engineers don't even have their own houses, reliable cars and health care and they still defend the system that allows consumers who wouldn't cross the street for them to get their music for .99. The whole thing smacks of a sense of low self-worth.
(In the paper today a study reported that 96% of people value art in their community and only 20-some percent value artists--that should tell you something about how the general public feels about artists--they want what they've already done and they don't give a flip about the time, energy and will--the lives--it takes to get it done. And why should they, it's not like artists care about them.)
2) To Dynomike--the market doesn't care how much labor it takes to produce an item. Most modern goods don't take much. T-shirts are the perfect example. An old Yardbirds T-shirt just went for $4K at auction and new designer ts go for upwards of $400. There may be some differences in production costs but they're likely $1-2 per shirt. Everything else is the value of design and art.
I'm willing to guess that most people on here arguing about how evil expensive designers are actually have a favorite or two themselves. Very few people have much problem spending more money once they have it--punk rockers and hood-claiming rappers included. (Though most rappers, to their credit, talk openly and freely about their desires--not wanting anything seems to be a largely punk--and underground rapper--pose.)
For a site that theoretically values artistry above all else (gear), I'm surprised so few people are willing to step up and say I value it monetarily--where it matters most. Do you think anyone will come "care" about us if we don't care about ourselves. Would Tape Oppers really drop $150,000 on a vintage Neve before we'd even consider $5 a song? What does that say about our values?
It's kind of like union workers--no one will value what artists produce until we do ourselves. And why should they--they have things to do and lives to lead and all we asked for was .99. In the consumer's mind the transaction is done. They don't know or care that the studio went out of business, the engineer went into computer programming, the intern got discouraged, the singer got strung out and the indie label laid off two more people.
And why should they?
No one's going to give anyone any more than they ask for. It's up to the person who makes the product to ask what it costs plus whatever else they want. Screw all the benefits for artists and non-profits for the arts. Screw grants and government funding--that's all welfare art. And it stinks like a public housing stairwell.
I'd much rather have a market-based art. If people don't want to pay what it costs for me as a person with $80K in education and a desire for my own home and health insurance to produce art, then screw them--I'll do what I have to until they do.
But I'm not going to give it away cheap to try to get them to like me and then bitch that I can't make a living. That, to me, is selling out.
There are also often huge costs associated with better music, books and movies in many instances. Everything from more rehearsal, longer gestation time, more rest, healthier lives, health insurance, time to explore influences and other cultures, and down time to greater emotional risks or personal costs. To think that producing higher quality music doesn't require more money isn't true in many cases. It can be true but try getting Lavry sound out of MOTU converters. It's not the CD that is being sold--but the sound and feel and love on the cd, in the movie--etc., etc.
What the real equation is is that it costs artists relatively more money to bring love to market than it does hate. And with the economic pressures mounting all around, this is becoming more and more apparent. We have all the black metal and screamed depression we could ever want, but where is the love? Distributing may be easier--or computerized and standardized--but that doesn't make it easier to make better or more loving art. Just easier to distribute it once it's made.
The bottom line is that emotional risks will have to be valued on par with financial risks if we are to get a healthy society. They'll have to be valued on par (or higher) personally, of course, but also financially.
3) To the guy who said that no one will pay more for music because everyone is not stealing it anyway:
I think the numbers are 25 illegal download for every song bought.
And if none of the above arguments have swayed you, then:
So much music is stolen because the subject matter of most mass content is of greatest interest to the segment of the market most likely to steal it--kids and thieves. And because artists have not stood up for themselves. Who would steal from an artist they respected if that artist said if you steal from me you're a putz? I honestly don't know how artists can make decent music kissing so much audience ass.
Rappers sing about shooting people who rip them off but don't never once have I heard one tell kids not to steal their songs. Punks sing about hating the parent who lied to them (or the Man who didn't care and wouldn't let them be real at work) but don't ever talk about the downloading scenester who won't let being real work.
Which, in my opinion, makes them ass-kissing poseurs and hypocrites.
A $50 cd, like a $50K car or a $2000 suit, will likely be of much more interest to a more mature audience, that is less likely to steal and much more likely to know what stealing from someone means in a larger sense. (Cue arguments about piracy being cool because I wasn't going to buy it anyway here.)
Since so many people have issues with my more status examples put it this way: organic broccoli is much less likely to get stolen than a candy bar. Vitamins are much less likely to get stolen than drugs. A more mature art that is valued more highly by adults is less likely to be stolen because it's likely a somewhat acquired taste.
And, a note to the person who asked who would value the songs--the same people who value jeans, t-shirts, coffee, gas, ball bearings, water, lawn mowing and every other good and service in existence--a combination of the people who make it and the people who buy it. The only producers in the free world who don't exercise any control over their wholesale prices are mass medium artists.
People who steal ultimately only play themselves. They think they're getting over--that they'll be happier, or richer, or more entertained?but they're not and they won't be. Like people who cheat. You might be able to front on your mind, or on your roommate or girlfriend but you can't front on your soul. There's no way you can become more valuable through ill gotten means. (And believe me, I've tried). It's like trying to get happier by drinking coffee or taking drugs--it absolutely doesn't work in the long run.
From the market's perspective the main problem remains: that until we pay higher prices, our best artists can't make good enough music fast enough to satisfy our desires because they have to spend so much time touring and designing t-shirts. (The shitty artists have much more time for writing songs and recording, unfortunately. ) Even $3 for a hit download would mean a radical departure from the model of today's "rush through the recording so you can get on tour" mentality that pretty much all quality artists follow.
4) As for subatomic pieces--go ahead and stay in the game until it buys you a house and your kids health insurance and then come back to me and say that your work is valued on par with all your friends who left music to be unhappy lawyers, accountants and real estate slangers.
At that point, if you can still discuss the subject of giving your life over to the creation of art, I'll be happy to talk about anything you want--soul-less aristocrats who prefer handmade designer purses to those made in Chinese sweatshops and sold at Hot Topic included.
I know people who have changed the face of music and, having nothing to show for it are back working shit jobs by the time they're 32. Do the same thing in software and you're set for life. One great album in a musical career is a failure, one great product in almost any other is success. (Ralph Elliison's only finished novel was Invisible Man--why should he have had to teach to make money while so many rich college kids who went on to be millionaires were still learning from and being inspired by his book? If nothing else, it's a huge waste of talent--like making Mick Jagger teach at band camp.)
We all pay more for a bottle of tap water that takes 10 minutes to drink and is processed entirely by machines than for our favorite artists best songs that we listen to thousands of times and inspire our entire lives.
All I'm saying is that this will inevitably change--it doesn't matter what anyone (including me) thinks--just what we want. And sooner or later, we'll realize that we get what we pay for and admit that we want more good music, movies, books and magazines than what we currently have.
And we'll happily pay market rates for that we care about. Because we'll know that that's the only way we'll get: a) more of what we love more often, and b) any chance at making a decent living doing what we love.
Until we pay market rates for what we love, we'll get neither a nor b. And what we love will constantly fall behind other key indicators like the price of real estate. meaning that we, and all mass medium artists, are constantly failing financially. No one's as good as their last hit--only as good as their next hit.
Maybe you think that financial struggle makes better art. If so, I'll send you my Paypal address and you can make me a worse artist and I'll make you a better one.
Just like punks went kicking and screaming to cell phones, property ownership, major labels, yoga and dental care, I can promise that they'll go kicking and screaming to getting paid what they're worth. (Back when punk meant something, if you had a cell phone you were a sell-out corporate tool--but times change, don't they?)
I hate to break it to ya, but that's what's happening.
The music industry is failing and it can either raise prices or raise prices.
That's the only options it has.
I'm happy to be the hipster devil on this one.
Eben
Sounds like a lot of money issues here. Keep investigating your artistic selves and you'll find that you don't actually hate money, just those who think it can do things it can't (and yo may not even hate them). You might even admit that you want more money in your life. I do.
Since a few people have taken the opportunity of my personal, and real examples to take a few pot shots, I'll mention that for plenty of years I was broke and poor and drunk and thrift store'd out and lived in apartments that had rats, mice, silverfish and kitchen floors that were falling into the basement and refrigerators with no shelves and self-renewing pools of muck on the bottom (and hot water-heaters that shot flames and cars that had to be hotwired to start). I worked as a bike messenger and lived on pasta, soy sauce and sour cream and was about as down with the "scene" as one can get--before it was as widely accepted as it was today and before it made any money at all. (And even before you could make any money being a cool graphic designer or web programmer). Before any indie or punk bands expected a dime and when choosing punk really cost you money. (Now it just kind of costs you money).
So if you need my "scene cred" alongside my sweater price to hear what I'm saying, there you go. I also probably had a chain wallet before you heard of the Pixies.
(And likely got rid of it before you heard of Pavement. --You probably still haven't heard of Swiz, Rites of Spring, Channnel 3, the Queers, Unwound, Come and The Frogs.)
With that said, there have also been some intelligent additions to the discussion, to which I'll respond.
1) To the guy who said why don't I charge $50,000 for my post--I'm actually writing a book about it and I plan to make a whole lot more than that off it. The economic information that content has been overlooked by the market is of incalculable value to business, culture, society in general and ARTISTS iN PARTICULAR. Why I give it to shmos like you for free is that there are intelligent, respectful, mature folks like Justin and some others who are actually interested in the subject--although don't think I don't ask myself that same question every time I suffer through an "ass engineer" post sent between two guys who might as well just be IMing each other.
I've written tons more about it on my blog: whiteg.com.
This information will create millions and millions of more enjoyable and higher paying jobs for people who value artistry over science, management and numbers--which I feel is worth any quantity about bitchy barbs about leopard-print thongs. What we're talking about here is parity for people who can relax reason and articulate emotion with those who can suppress emotion and articulate reason. I feel that is of paramount importance.
It will have the added effect of allowing millions to make a living without the level of environmental destruction that participating in the current economy requires. (As the current economy values material quality and not artistic quality, even its most artistic participants must consume vast material resources to pay their bills. --This is another way of saying that if a band can't make money sitting in a studio thinking up songs and using some electricity, then it must hit the road, sell beer and burn gas, use tires and 18 wheelers, sell cotton shirts printed with oil based inks, promote cars (like Dylan) or video games (like Slash), heat arenas and put on light shows with lots of electricity, fly to festivals, etc..) The environmental part of the equation alone is enough reason to float prices, but I'd rather appeal to people's desire than their guilt, so I usually don't mention it.
What's funny is that those who would benefit the most from floating prices find them so repulsive and offensive. Kind of like Soviet era factory workers holding on tight to their state-funded housing and miserable health care. They want scene/Party cred--to be cool--over health insurance and regular dental care.
Musicians and engineers don't even have their own houses, reliable cars and health care and they still defend the system that allows consumers who wouldn't cross the street for them to get their music for .99. The whole thing smacks of a sense of low self-worth.
(In the paper today a study reported that 96% of people value art in their community and only 20-some percent value artists--that should tell you something about how the general public feels about artists--they want what they've already done and they don't give a flip about the time, energy and will--the lives--it takes to get it done. And why should they, it's not like artists care about them.)
2) To Dynomike--the market doesn't care how much labor it takes to produce an item. Most modern goods don't take much. T-shirts are the perfect example. An old Yardbirds T-shirt just went for $4K at auction and new designer ts go for upwards of $400. There may be some differences in production costs but they're likely $1-2 per shirt. Everything else is the value of design and art.
I'm willing to guess that most people on here arguing about how evil expensive designers are actually have a favorite or two themselves. Very few people have much problem spending more money once they have it--punk rockers and hood-claiming rappers included. (Though most rappers, to their credit, talk openly and freely about their desires--not wanting anything seems to be a largely punk--and underground rapper--pose.)
For a site that theoretically values artistry above all else (gear), I'm surprised so few people are willing to step up and say I value it monetarily--where it matters most. Do you think anyone will come "care" about us if we don't care about ourselves. Would Tape Oppers really drop $150,000 on a vintage Neve before we'd even consider $5 a song? What does that say about our values?
It's kind of like union workers--no one will value what artists produce until we do ourselves. And why should they--they have things to do and lives to lead and all we asked for was .99. In the consumer's mind the transaction is done. They don't know or care that the studio went out of business, the engineer went into computer programming, the intern got discouraged, the singer got strung out and the indie label laid off two more people.
And why should they?
No one's going to give anyone any more than they ask for. It's up to the person who makes the product to ask what it costs plus whatever else they want. Screw all the benefits for artists and non-profits for the arts. Screw grants and government funding--that's all welfare art. And it stinks like a public housing stairwell.
I'd much rather have a market-based art. If people don't want to pay what it costs for me as a person with $80K in education and a desire for my own home and health insurance to produce art, then screw them--I'll do what I have to until they do.
But I'm not going to give it away cheap to try to get them to like me and then bitch that I can't make a living. That, to me, is selling out.
There are also often huge costs associated with better music, books and movies in many instances. Everything from more rehearsal, longer gestation time, more rest, healthier lives, health insurance, time to explore influences and other cultures, and down time to greater emotional risks or personal costs. To think that producing higher quality music doesn't require more money isn't true in many cases. It can be true but try getting Lavry sound out of MOTU converters. It's not the CD that is being sold--but the sound and feel and love on the cd, in the movie--etc., etc.
What the real equation is is that it costs artists relatively more money to bring love to market than it does hate. And with the economic pressures mounting all around, this is becoming more and more apparent. We have all the black metal and screamed depression we could ever want, but where is the love? Distributing may be easier--or computerized and standardized--but that doesn't make it easier to make better or more loving art. Just easier to distribute it once it's made.
The bottom line is that emotional risks will have to be valued on par with financial risks if we are to get a healthy society. They'll have to be valued on par (or higher) personally, of course, but also financially.
3) To the guy who said that no one will pay more for music because everyone is not stealing it anyway:
I think the numbers are 25 illegal download for every song bought.
And if none of the above arguments have swayed you, then:
So much music is stolen because the subject matter of most mass content is of greatest interest to the segment of the market most likely to steal it--kids and thieves. And because artists have not stood up for themselves. Who would steal from an artist they respected if that artist said if you steal from me you're a putz? I honestly don't know how artists can make decent music kissing so much audience ass.
Rappers sing about shooting people who rip them off but don't never once have I heard one tell kids not to steal their songs. Punks sing about hating the parent who lied to them (or the Man who didn't care and wouldn't let them be real at work) but don't ever talk about the downloading scenester who won't let being real work.
Which, in my opinion, makes them ass-kissing poseurs and hypocrites.
A $50 cd, like a $50K car or a $2000 suit, will likely be of much more interest to a more mature audience, that is less likely to steal and much more likely to know what stealing from someone means in a larger sense. (Cue arguments about piracy being cool because I wasn't going to buy it anyway here.)
Since so many people have issues with my more status examples put it this way: organic broccoli is much less likely to get stolen than a candy bar. Vitamins are much less likely to get stolen than drugs. A more mature art that is valued more highly by adults is less likely to be stolen because it's likely a somewhat acquired taste.
And, a note to the person who asked who would value the songs--the same people who value jeans, t-shirts, coffee, gas, ball bearings, water, lawn mowing and every other good and service in existence--a combination of the people who make it and the people who buy it. The only producers in the free world who don't exercise any control over their wholesale prices are mass medium artists.
People who steal ultimately only play themselves. They think they're getting over--that they'll be happier, or richer, or more entertained?but they're not and they won't be. Like people who cheat. You might be able to front on your mind, or on your roommate or girlfriend but you can't front on your soul. There's no way you can become more valuable through ill gotten means. (And believe me, I've tried). It's like trying to get happier by drinking coffee or taking drugs--it absolutely doesn't work in the long run.
From the market's perspective the main problem remains: that until we pay higher prices, our best artists can't make good enough music fast enough to satisfy our desires because they have to spend so much time touring and designing t-shirts. (The shitty artists have much more time for writing songs and recording, unfortunately.
) Even $3 for a hit download would mean a radical departure from the model of today's "rush through the recording so you can get on tour" mentality that pretty much all quality artists follow.4) As for subatomic pieces--go ahead and stay in the game until it buys you a house and your kids health insurance and then come back to me and say that your work is valued on par with all your friends who left music to be unhappy lawyers, accountants and real estate slangers.
At that point, if you can still discuss the subject of giving your life over to the creation of art, I'll be happy to talk about anything you want--soul-less aristocrats who prefer handmade designer purses to those made in Chinese sweatshops and sold at Hot Topic included.
I know people who have changed the face of music and, having nothing to show for it are back working shit jobs by the time they're 32. Do the same thing in software and you're set for life. One great album in a musical career is a failure, one great product in almost any other is success. (Ralph Elliison's only finished novel was Invisible Man--why should he have had to teach to make money while so many rich college kids who went on to be millionaires were still learning from and being inspired by his book? If nothing else, it's a huge waste of talent--like making Mick Jagger teach at band camp.)
We all pay more for a bottle of tap water that takes 10 minutes to drink and is processed entirely by machines than for our favorite artists best songs that we listen to thousands of times and inspire our entire lives.
All I'm saying is that this will inevitably change--it doesn't matter what anyone (including me) thinks--just what we want. And sooner or later, we'll realize that we get what we pay for and admit that we want more good music, movies, books and magazines than what we currently have.
And we'll happily pay market rates for that we care about. Because we'll know that that's the only way we'll get: a) more of what we love more often, and b) any chance at making a decent living doing what we love.
Until we pay market rates for what we love, we'll get neither a nor b. And what we love will constantly fall behind other key indicators like the price of real estate. meaning that we, and all mass medium artists, are constantly failing financially. No one's as good as their last hit--only as good as their next hit.
Maybe you think that financial struggle makes better art. If so, I'll send you my Paypal address and you can make me a worse artist and I'll make you a better one.
Just like punks went kicking and screaming to cell phones, property ownership, major labels, yoga and dental care, I can promise that they'll go kicking and screaming to getting paid what they're worth. (Back when punk meant something, if you had a cell phone you were a sell-out corporate tool--but times change, don't they?)
I hate to break it to ya, but that's what's happening.
The music industry is failing and it can either raise prices or raise prices.
That's the only options it has.
I'm happy to be the hipster devil on this one.
Eben
-
thethingwiththestuff
- george martin
- Posts: 1296
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:00 pm
- Location: philly
may i steer you to:
http://www.suncitygirls.com/catalog/section/3
The Sun City Girls online store. They charge 40 and 50 dollars for some of their lps. they are very much a boutique band.... they've had this pricing scheme for years. it's as much a mindfuck as their music is, especially considering the obviously low-overhead involved in the making of them!
your constant invocation of "its kind of like Soviet era..." "its kind of like unions..." is kinda like Reagan. socialist countries subsidize artists. as you've diagnosed all of us as money-fearing indie rockers, may i characterize you as that dude whose brilliant epiphany is that bike messengering sucks and that making a living is respectable? i never thought of that. your personal story of triumph over youthful ideals has me reconsidering my life path.
about the eagles and wal-mart.... i didnt even hear about this till this post, and i still dont care. if it's hipsterish to avoid bland Cali. radio rock from the 70's and a grossly destructive big box store, well slap my ass and have my folks buy me an apartment at bedford and 7th.
i certainly agree that musicians should be able to make comfortable livings. paul mccartney can charge $250 a ticket, just like jazz and classical can charge a lot for their seats, but these are live events. there is already plenty of stratification in the music industry... if music costs $100 a disc, or more, then many of its biggest appreciators will have to go to museums? you'd be pricing out music's most rabid fans (and spenders). ridiculous! what would sony say if you told them no one would buy CD players anymore cause the media was priced so high??
http://www.suncitygirls.com/catalog/section/3
The Sun City Girls online store. They charge 40 and 50 dollars for some of their lps. they are very much a boutique band.... they've had this pricing scheme for years. it's as much a mindfuck as their music is, especially considering the obviously low-overhead involved in the making of them!
your constant invocation of "its kind of like Soviet era..." "its kind of like unions..." is kinda like Reagan. socialist countries subsidize artists. as you've diagnosed all of us as money-fearing indie rockers, may i characterize you as that dude whose brilliant epiphany is that bike messengering sucks and that making a living is respectable? i never thought of that. your personal story of triumph over youthful ideals has me reconsidering my life path.
about the eagles and wal-mart.... i didnt even hear about this till this post, and i still dont care. if it's hipsterish to avoid bland Cali. radio rock from the 70's and a grossly destructive big box store, well slap my ass and have my folks buy me an apartment at bedford and 7th.
i certainly agree that musicians should be able to make comfortable livings. paul mccartney can charge $250 a ticket, just like jazz and classical can charge a lot for their seats, but these are live events. there is already plenty of stratification in the music industry... if music costs $100 a disc, or more, then many of its biggest appreciators will have to go to museums? you'd be pricing out music's most rabid fans (and spenders). ridiculous! what would sony say if you told them no one would buy CD players anymore cause the media was priced so high??
-
chris harris
- speech impediment
- Posts: 4270
- Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
- Location: Norman, OK
- Contact:
The Sun City Girls are selling out of print first pressings for $50, nothing new there.
What I'm describing is what it took NOT to give up the youthful ideals I generated when I was a sarcastic jerk like you--but what it will realistically take to fund them moving forward. If you're still involved in music at 40 then more power to you.
I notice you haven't addressed any of my more substantive points. Other to say that I sound like Reagan.
To elaborate on the point you infer--Reagan advocated a trickle down--making the rich richer and eventually benefiting the poor. What I'm talking about is the bottom taking responsibility--and getting paid--for the value they are creating. The consumers buying music are more wealthy than the artists in most cases.
Which would be bringing the bottom up.
Most music will likely cost between .99 and $10 a song. Most movies between $10 and $20, most books between $10 and $40--everything we already have will still be available--just more.
Is that short enough for you to get through in between hits of Red Bull, subatomic? I take your non-relation as a badge of honor if there's any possible way I can say that without it being taken negatively.
Much love..
--The Devil
What I'm describing is what it took NOT to give up the youthful ideals I generated when I was a sarcastic jerk like you--but what it will realistically take to fund them moving forward. If you're still involved in music at 40 then more power to you.
I notice you haven't addressed any of my more substantive points. Other to say that I sound like Reagan.
To elaborate on the point you infer--Reagan advocated a trickle down--making the rich richer and eventually benefiting the poor. What I'm talking about is the bottom taking responsibility--and getting paid--for the value they are creating. The consumers buying music are more wealthy than the artists in most cases.
Which would be bringing the bottom up.
Most music will likely cost between .99 and $10 a song. Most movies between $10 and $20, most books between $10 and $40--everything we already have will still be available--just more.
Is that short enough for you to get through in between hits of Red Bull, subatomic? I take your non-relation as a badge of honor if there's any possible way I can say that without it being taken negatively.
Much love..
--The Devilif you think a screen name is clever then that explains alot.Eben wrote:Now that's funny.RefD wrote:*rereads Eben's last post*
*goes back to cleaning up vomit from left over from first read*
Am I the only one using my real name here? It's pretty easy to loft barbs from behind a clever screen name.
WAS sarcastic, tho?
?What need is there to weep over parts of life? The whole of it calls for tears.? -- Seneca
-
MoreSpaceEcho
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
-
thethingwiththestuff
- george martin
- Posts: 1296
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:00 pm
- Location: philly
your 'substance' was buried so deep in bullshit 'you hippies actually love money' rhetoric and complaints about a play on "assistant engineer" that i glossed over most of them.
music is not like fashion in that it is an art not based in status, and is often meant to be enjoyed in groups. if i have an obscure record, i will recommend it to a friend (or copy it for them, frankly) because i want them to enjoy it as well. fashion is not about sharing. when one goes to a club on a friday night, everyone listens to the same dj, right? obviously there are various cheaper and more expensive clubs one can go to, but regardless, you wont go in and see everyone with their own ipod on dancing seperately. your parallel is false, and the build quality example of a sweater doesn't stand up to the intangibility of music. if the cd breaks down, sure, that's analogous.
your model completely ignores the ways and reasons people enjoy music. this has nothing to do with outdated Gen X ideals. i'm all ears for a realistic solution to paying artists.
music is not like fashion in that it is an art not based in status, and is often meant to be enjoyed in groups. if i have an obscure record, i will recommend it to a friend (or copy it for them, frankly) because i want them to enjoy it as well. fashion is not about sharing. when one goes to a club on a friday night, everyone listens to the same dj, right? obviously there are various cheaper and more expensive clubs one can go to, but regardless, you wont go in and see everyone with their own ipod on dancing seperately. your parallel is false, and the build quality example of a sweater doesn't stand up to the intangibility of music. if the cd breaks down, sure, that's analogous.
your model completely ignores the ways and reasons people enjoy music. this has nothing to do with outdated Gen X ideals. i'm all ears for a realistic solution to paying artists.
-
thethingwiththestuff
- george martin
- Posts: 1296
- Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:00 pm
- Location: philly
You glossed over my "substance" but are the true purveyor of truth, beauty and value when it comes to Art? Unlike everyone who wants a running car, takes pride in their appearance, wants to fix up their house, live in a decent neighborhood, etc. And Art is so special that not even it's true masters should expect a living wage from it.thethingwiththestuff wrote:your 'substance' was buried so deep in bullshit 'you hippies actually love money' rhetoric and complaints about a play on "assistant engineer" that i glossed over most of them.
music is not like fashion in that it is an art not based in status, and is often meant to be enjoyed in groups. if i have an obscure record, i will recommend it to a friend (or copy it for them, frankly) because i want them to enjoy it as well. fashion is not about sharing. when one goes to a club on a friday night, everyone listens to the same dj, right? obviously there are various cheaper and more expensive clubs one can go to, but regardless, you wont go in and see everyone with their own ipod on dancing seperately. your parallel is false, and the build quality example of a sweater doesn't stand up to the intangibility of music. if the cd breaks down, sure, that's analogous.
your model completely ignores the ways and reasons people enjoy music. this has nothing to do with outdated Gen X ideals. i'm all ears for a realistic solution to paying artists.
There's only one realistic solution. Charge more. Where does money come from in your mind? Magic, trees? How can a producer make more without a consumer paying more?
It's a zero sum equation.
Anyone else?
Come on--almost free "ass engineer" jokes can by yours just for the price of a few keystrokes. If I get bored and go back to Gearslutz, it's back to the major labels are bad and they hurt us lowly artistes and it will take self-releasing really nice bands who are great and tour constantly for free to save music clusterfuck.
And as for Shellac--likely wouldn't leave them on if they were on the radio. I don't feel they have any new love to offer, nor do I find them entertaining. (Said to audible gasps from across the underground recording industry). Brittany, I might leave on Toxic for a chorus or two and I'm somewhat interested in what she's doing on this album because I love Timbaland and one of his proteges did a few of the beats. It's not up to me to set prices so what I'd pay for each is irrelevant and would likely just distract from the matter at hand.
The beauty of floating prices is that junk tanks and cream rises. In the system we have now junk rises and cream sinks. It's a horribly inefficient way to disseminate information, share culture or just about anything else.
I remain,
Yours Truly..
(Yawn)..
Pleased with myself (you said that like it was a sin)..
Full of it and popular like the mumps..
Rawr (scary monster noise)..
Eben
Last edited by E Car on Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Nick Sevilla and 161 guests