| Author |
 Topic  |
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
 Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:06:43
|
CDs are too expensive. I think that is the real problem here. When I was in High School, I spent my money on tapes and 7 inches and stuff at shows, and I had a job while I went to school and in the summers, which supported my huge music habit. But tapes and indie-produced local music was comparatively affordable and bred an incredible self-sustaining and constantly replenishing local music scene in my hometown. I would love to see an across the board drop in CD prices, not this temporary arbitrary drop here and there. I would also love to someday soon start my own label and support musicians in my community, like so many did back then - that more than anything is the way to ensure a thriving community of good artists and happy fans. I don't blame people in high school or whatever or not of working age that download all their music - they would go broke if they bought it all for f**k's sake.
Look for my new record label someday soon...! (Hey, a gal can dream, can't she? ;) ) |
 |
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:10:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by cvanepps
You could say that Chuck D is the antithesis of Lars Ulrich (or the AntiUlrich, if you will).
He's his Lex Luther!
(sorry couldn't resist) |
|
|
|
the swimmer
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1602 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:11:15
|
Spoken from someone who thinks Limmerick being changed to Swimmerick is "pure genius", how can she be wrong?
But seriously folks, despite momentary lapses of what constitutes genius, the prices ARE way too high. I wold LOVE to buy 3 or 4 cds at a time, try new music, whatever (although I don't know why I should HAVE to buy new music when there is so much old music that I haven't heard yet and need to) but at 17.99 pre tax a pop...sorry.
Greed caused this. I say again and can I get an amen...GREED. |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:18:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by the swimmer
Spoken from someone who thinks Limmerick being changed to Swimmerick is "pure genius", how can she be wrong? But seriously folks, despite momentary lapses of what constitutes genius...
Hey guy - you're not being serious are you? You don't see the humor there? C'mon! |
|
|
|
the swimmer
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1602 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:22:24
|
You use the term pure genius a little loose is all I'm saying. That's okay, it really says a whole lot more about you than we knew before.
|
|
|
|
cvanepps
= Cult of Ray =
USA
442 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:22:24
|
Not that this will completely answer the CDs-are-too-expensive argument, but prices for new releases have come down to about $12.99 (US) where I live (NC). That's an improvement from the ridiculous $17.99 they used to be. Actually, that's about vinyl LPs cost in the early 80s so it's not bad at all. Anyone care to guess what caused them to do this?
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com |
|
|
|
the swimmer
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1602 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:25:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by cvanepps
Not that this will completely answer the CDs-are-too-expensive argument, but prices for new releases have come down to about $12.99 (US) where I live (NC). That's an improvement from the ridiculous $17.99 they used to be. Actually, that's about vinyl LPs cost in the early 80s so it's not bad at all. Anyone care to guess what caused them to do this?
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com
You're the pure genius, why don't you tell us.
In fact why don't you turn the answer into a witty poem. You're a pure genius at that. Maybe try to rhyme some of the words this time though and fit it into the cadence or rhythm if you will of a, you know, real limmerick.
|
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:27:15
|
Bah - such humbug, and I used to think you were a genius. Not!!!
OK, back to topic. =P |
|
|
|
the swimmer
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1602 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:29:32
|
| You don't see the humor there? Can you not read the sarcasm dripping like a over saturated syruppy pancake? |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:31:31
|
| mmmm - is it Maple syrup? This here is turning into pure humor porn. |
|
|
|
the swimmer
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1602 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:32:50
|
Maple with a hint of BROWN SUGAR.
|
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:34:33
|
mmmmmmmmmm. Yeah , the only way this sarcasm is gonna fly is if you pour-some-sugar-on [it].
You got that icky 80's song stuck in your head yet? heheh |
|
|
|
WolfManMikeLonely
= Cult of Ray =
USA
936 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:36:25
|
Someone told me that that was their favorite song the other day, they didn't even seem to be being sarcastic.
"Hey fuck you if you don't like it."
-Johnny Thunders
www.transposed.net |
|
|
|
the swimmer
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1602 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:37:28
|
Why is it...POUR SOME SUGAR ON MAAAAAAAAAAY
Instead of Pour some sugar on ME? |
|
|
|
WolfManMikeLonely
= Cult of Ray =
USA
936 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 09:41:07
|
Damn hair metal. Now I want some cherry pie.
"Hey fuck you if you don't like it."
-Johnny Thunders
www.transposed.net |
|
|
|
cvanepps
= Cult of Ray =
USA
442 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 11:04:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by the swimmer
You're the pure genius, why don't you tell us.
Why thank you. However, you don't need to be a genius to know that the big 4 record companies have reduced the prices because of downloading. Also, wasn't there a lawsuit against the big 4 for overcharging for CDs?
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com |
|
|
|
the swimmer
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1602 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 11:28:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by cvanepps
quote:
Originally posted by the swimmer
You're the pure genius, why don't you tell us.
Why thank you. However, you don't need to be a genius to know that the big 4 record companies have reduced the prices because of downloading. Also, wasn't there a lawsuit against the big 4 for overcharging for CDs?
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com
Why do you let people hear your "music" for free or download it? |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 11:32:22
|
Not for overcharging, necessarily, but for price-fixing. It's all about what the market will bear, which is I guess what Chuck D is banking on (no pun intended), hoping that no one buys their expensive product.
I noticed that some lowered their prices, but most of the outlets did not. |
|
|
|
cvanepps
= Cult of Ray =
USA
442 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 13:52:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by the swimmer
Why do you let people hear your "music" for free or download it?
That's a fair question, Swimmer. I think you must be slipping...you'll have to work on making them unfair again. Just some more good-natured ribbing. Ho Ho Ho.
Anyway, to respond. The full song downloads are ripped from my 1999 CD, the one I gave away for free at the release party. So those songs are free to all. The downloads from the 2002 CD (the one I'm selling/getting airplay with) are merely demos or snippetts. I think the demos are at least half the length of the full song. How can a casual visitor to that IUMA site tell the difference? They probably can't.
I really liked what you did with Dog Gone on the FB Tribute so I tried to listen to your stuff on MP3.com but they want me to register and such to hear it. Bah!
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com |
|
|
|
the swimmer
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1602 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 14:13:46
|
No it really was a real question. Just wondering why some people, myself included give their songs for free.
Well, the obvious answer for me of course is...who am I? Why would people pay for stuff from some unknown guy?
The hardest part of establishing a "career" as an "artist" is first, having people wade through all the unbelievable amount of junk and crap out there to get to your stuff...
I take a page from the drug dealers book...give em the first ones free and hopefully they'll be hooked and want more.
More than that, I figure, if you let them sample, than the ones who do want more really DO want more. They are fans.
Really, all I want out of music is almost self defeating.
I want something I create to go BEYOND me so that it isn't even mine anymore but everybodys'.
I want people to know the song but not the writer or singer, you know. |
|
|
|
Crispy Water
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
819 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 14:17:13
|
I'm all for bringing financial suffering to the truly greedy. Yes, I include the big record labels in that group. However, I also have to include some of the musicians as well: I can't believe it when I read about songwriters/bands complaining that downloading their music infringes on their "rights." They seem to think it is their right to have their product paid for and appreciated, which in an immature way seems analogous to crying over not being voted "most popular" in high school.
It's not your "right" to make money just because you recorded some songs, especially if the songs don't present any innovative ideas. It's the nature of the creative world that nearly all work is derivative: just because someone used green instead of blue for the shading, or went from A to C instead of A to E, doesn't mean they've made a meaningful contribution to their creative field - only that they have an awareness of the tools their predecessors have developed. There are bright people spending their days fixing electronics, lugging appliances, sorting mail, selling cars....all walks of life, basically, that would have much to contribute to the creative world if they weren't deluded into thinking the reason you stage a play or make a record is to get some bucks. That's why people give up, or don't even try to contribute - they get frustrated when they put all that work into the song and don't get to trade in their old Corollas as a result.
I think trying to MAKE money off recorded music is a slap in the face to the fans. Yes, there's definitely work and time involved, especially with good music, but making a profit on it doesn't sit right with me. Do a little math and set prices in such a way that sales will cancel out production and distribution costs; the more you sell the lower your prices can be, and it's conceivable that both the size and loyalty of your fanbase will grow based on this alone. Work on developing the live show, and record them too; the power of what they call word-of-mouth is incredible thanks to the Internet. If your live show is worth seeing in Minneapolis, someone will jump on a message board like this to tell everyone how great it was and by the time you hit Iqaluit there will be people waiting to buy your tickets. That's where you can get your money. Encourage your fans to tape and share - bands can tour the world on the strength of the live show.
Tortured Artist-"Ohhh, but these songs are meant to be experienced as an album."
Common Sense Respondent-"Then perform them in the same friggin' order at your shows."
If you can't recreate your records live, then you'll just have to live with the fact that your ideas will be your legacy rather than your ability to put them into action. Then in twenty years someone will play the record for their kids and they'll go start a band. Maybe they'll even be hit with your dream and come tell you how badly you got shafted way back when (Alex Chilton, anyone?)
I guess these thoughts are probably pretty scattered, but I think I've given my take.
Nothing is ever something. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 14:20:24
|
Once you sign with one of these companies do you always have to give up all rights to your music, you know, ala the whole Jacko/Beatles thing?
How does that work exactly? |
Edited by - Carolynanna on 12/02/2003 14:29:30 |
|
|
|
the swimmer
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1602 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 14:21:49
|
| Very Well put, Crispy. I agree. |
|
|
|
cvanepps
= Cult of Ray =
USA
442 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 14:40:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by the swimmer
No it really was a real question. Just wondering why some people, myself included give their songs for free.
Well, the obvious answer for me of course is...who am I? Why would people pay for stuff from some unknown guy?
The hardest part of establishing a "career" as an "artist" is first, having people wade through all the unbelievable amount of junk and crap out there to get to your stuff...
I take a page from the drug dealers book...give em the first ones free and hopefully they'll be hooked and want more.
More than that, I figure, if you let them sample, than the ones who do want more really DO want more. They are fans.
Really, all I want out of music is almost self defeating.
I want something I create to go BEYOND me so that it isn't even mine anymore but everybodys'.
I want people to know the song but not the writer or singer, you know.
I hear you. I hope I haven't given you the impression that I'm MAKING money doing this. HA! No sir, I've lost a helluva lot. But I enjoy it and I want to get better/develop my live show, etc.
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com |
|
|
|
Crispy Water
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
819 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 14:40:55
|
Carolyn - depends on the agreement. I certainly don't know all the ins and outs involved in negotiating one, but there are definitely some who keep rights to their songs and some who don't, so there can't be a universal rule about it.
Nothing is ever something. |
|
|
|
Crispy Water
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
819 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 14:45:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by cvanepps
I hear you. I hope I haven't given you the impression that I'm MAKING money doing this. HA! No sir, I've lost a helluva lot. But I enjoy it and I want to get better/develop my live show, etc.
If this was a response to my comment about how I don't like people trying to MAKE money off recordings, I didn't mean they should lose it either. I've lost money on it too. What I meant is that they should try to price their recordings so that they break even, NOT make a profit. Again, that's what live shows are for.
Nothing is ever something. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 14:50:18
|
I don't see a problem with them making money, personally. Breaking even means that there's no way in hell that FB could tour and spend the time and energy he does releasing albums. He'd need a job to sustain himself. Which is where I'm at right now, and between that and living a life not otherwise completely dedicated to music, it's taken a long time and we've still not finished this first album.
 "Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
Cheeseman1000
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Iceland
8201 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 15:39:56
|
Having studied this at length, I've come to this conclusion:
Stick with a 56k dial-up (bear with me).
You can't download entire albums with this, it takes too long, so you download 2 or 3 tracks from a band, find out whether you like them then buy the CD if you do. Problem solved. Its best when bands put tracks on their website for this very reason.
Also, you can download songs for which you don't want the rest of the album without paying crazy!
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"Same thing we do every night, Pinky: try to take over the world!" |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 16:06:38
|
carolyanna - from my understanding, there are two kinds of copyrights for music: song rights, and recording rights. song rights are basically, the song itself, as it's written, as a piece of original music. the recording rights are the physical recording of the song.
most artists give up the recording rights, but keep the song rights.
so in movies, when they want to use a particular song, they have to get both sets of rights to be able to use it. (from the record compnay or whoever owns the recording rights, and from the artist.. unless one or the other owns both. i'm guessing Frank owns both)..
cripsy water - i completely disagree with you.. so musicians should't make a profit? how are they supposed to live and support themselves? essentially, they should do it entirely for free? or, with just enough compensation to live hand in mouth? how much should they be allowed to make?
that just seems ridiculous to me.
whether the product is good or not has nothing to do with it. it's still a product - owned by someone, then sold to someone else.. that falls under the same rules of everything else that's bought and sold in our culture. there are plenty of bad products out there, but just becasue they're bad doesn't mean it should be ok to steal them.
why would you say musicians should't make a profit and not any other similar artists? do you think architects should be compensated for their work? or should they just be doing it for the passion of building and design? or what about painters? or photographers? or filmmakers?
i think the record companies are totally corrupt and have been gouging the people long enough.. i'm not disputing that..
but the idea that artists shouldn't be able to make a profit for their creations sounds odd to me. |
|
|
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 16:08:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
quote:
Originally posted by cvanepps
You could say that Chuck D is the antithesis of Lars Ulrich (or the AntiUlrich, if you will).
He's his Lex Luther!
(sorry couldn't resist)
Nice usage of the Seinfeld!
"Join the Cult of Frank / And you'll be enlightened" |
|
|
|
Visiting Sasquatch
= Cult of Ray =
USA
451 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 17:04:41
|
| Reading these boards make me think I live in communist China! Contribute your life work to the people, so that the people may benefit from it freely. Compensation? Yeah right! MAYBE, you'll break even, IF I like what I hear. This isn't even an IDEAL situation, it's wholly unfair. Creative artists may be using Kazaa to promote themselves on the internet; but established, and hopeful artists are not benefitting, (read: being paid), from unauthorized file sharing. The ONLY way they get their fifty cents is if you buy the album legitimately, no matter if you sampled the CD before or not, no matter if you're poor or greedy, no matter if you're politically left or right; right now, in this world, in this economical system, this is how they get paid. Like I said before, there are many artists experimenting with AUTHORIZED mp3 downloading where you can buy the one track you like from the album. BTW, Emusic has a subscription model where $20 a month buys you 90 tracks. In other words, you can get every single Pixies' album for $20, and then some! Geez, I would've loved that deal in high school when I bought each of them for $15. Anyway, I realize most of your minds were made up long before this thread was posted... |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 17:06:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Crispy Water
I'm all for bringing financial suffering to the truly greedy. Yes, I include the big record labels in that group. However, I also have to include some of the musicians as well: I can't believe it when I read about songwriters/bands complaining that downloading their music infringes on their "rights." They seem to think it is their right to have their product paid for and appreciated, which in an immature way seems analogous to crying over not being voted "most popular" in high school.
It's not your "right" to make money just because you recorded some songs, especially if the songs don't present any innovative ideas. It's the nature of the creative world that nearly all work is derivative: just because someone used green instead of blue for the shading, or went from A to C instead of A to E, doesn't mean they've made a meaningful contribution to their creative field - only that they have an awareness of the tools their predecessors have developed. There are bright people spending their days fixing electronics, lugging appliances, sorting mail, selling cars....all walks of life, basically, that would have much to contribute to the creative world if they weren't deluded into thinking the reason you stage a play or make a record is to get some bucks. That's why people give up, or don't even try to contribute - they get frustrated when they put all that work into the song and don't get to trade in their old Corollas as a result.
I think trying to MAKE money off recorded music is a slap in the face to the fans. Yes, there's definitely work and time involved, especially with good music, but making a profit on it doesn't sit right with me...
I absolutely completely disagree. Why should no one make a profit off of their music or art? All you have said is that it doesn't sit well with you, and anybody that tries to defend their work as intellectual property is a vain whiner (" seems analogous to crying over not being voted "most popular" in high school"). I am curious to know why you feel this way - what your reasoning is that people who make art or music or write or invent or compose or do anything creative should not make a profit when other people who work do. Is this Plato's Republic you're talking about here? Before I argue anymore I want to give you a chance to expound on that... :) |
|
|
|
cvanepps
= Cult of Ray =
USA
442 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 17:09:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Crispy Water
If this was a response to my comment about how I don't like people trying to MAKE money off recordings, I didn't mean they should lose it either. I've lost money on it too. What I meant is that they should try to price their recordings so that they break even, NOT make a profit. Again, that's what live shows are for.
Nothing is ever something.
No, I understand what you're saying. I guess I was using your comments to answer Swim-nasium (ack! I'm a genius again!) since they seemed to be related, at least in my cluttered melon. Plus, I re-read what I'd written about selling CDs and getting air play and it seemed boastful so I wanted to set things straight.
As far as breaking even, yes...I think that should be the first goal. But if you reach a point where you can make a profit, I don't believe anyone would stop. Let's not confuse profits with betraying art. I sure wouldn't.
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://christophervanepps.iuma.com |
|
|
|
MangyKid
- FB Fan -
170 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 17:34:30
|
| I say we all mail money directly to the artist in stead of buying the cd, and then download it! Wouldn't that be something? 100% profit for the artist, you're morally (if not legally) clear, and the artist is actually getting full payment, not rich kids who just happened to inherit a nice record company. Anybody know Frank's address? |
|
|
|
MangyKid
- FB Fan -
170 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 17:36:32
|
| Actually now that I think about it, if they only payed for production and distribution, and didn't have extremely ludicrous recording fees, the artist would make tons more if the album sold at 1/4 the price and they got the money directly. That's food for thought. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
