mattmagoo posted on Sep 23 2004 at 08:34 PM said:
LHC posted on Sep 23 2004 at 07:03 PM said:
declaration posted on Sep 23 2004 at 06:04 PM said:
Rico posted on Sep 23 2004 at 05:59 PM said:
spray posted on Sep 23 2004 at 06:19 PM said:
working in a music store is an odd experience for me, watch people handing over a decent nights worth of beer money for a green day album i've already had for a week.
Record label greediness aside, find some way to fucking support green day if you actually like their music. Tours/merchandise/whatever.
as if they need it.
Find something better to support. eg- people dying in Africa, not millionaires.
I am sure Green Day would agree too.
If you like Green Day's music (which I don't), they offer a lot more than a starving African. There is a reason for giving money to Green Day; as a reward for their talent and effort, and the joy that they bring the listener.
I dotn mean to sound snappy, but you are a tosser
ZOMG someone criticised charity, so fucking what. I'm fed up of this ridiculous prioritisation that is almost like America's anti-terrorism craziness after 9/11. LHC is correct that a starving African offers nothing and I wish to subscribe to his newsletter. It's simply economics. You could equally argue -
how can you eat that burger? Why not donate the money to starving Africans and have a sandwich instead? Why not give enough money to Africans so that you are on the same monetary terms?
---
Personally I'd prefer to give my money to bands that need it, but most aren't given coverage.
The record company business model is thus:
- Find marketable good looking schmucks
- Own them
- Spend $$$ on marketing and technical stuff to make them sound good, songwriters to write their lyrics
- Recoup cash via record sales due to advertising
How it should work:
- Artist performs
- Audience like music because it's good
- Artist makes money via touring or merchandise
This is nothing new. What's slightly new is the
CEO of the International equivalent of the RIAA recently commented on how much money labels have to spend on promotion and technical stuff, saying that "they were one of the most technical fields around because of the challenge of improving people's music" and that "he won't be happy until record labels get 50%" due to these expenses.
You shouldn't
need to spend that much, of course. The second business model requires no such cash, allowing groups to get by on talent alone. The public get better sounding music, as well. Artists make more cash.
Something missing here? Yeah, record companies are reduced. They now promote good music but can't make hits just like that. Jobs are at stake.
Which is why label CEOs want to act like bullies, and do things their way, and through DRM and other bullshit form a solution that will never work because they can keep up.
As long as music is shit, it will get pirated. People pirate because they can. That's the honest reason. When bands are individualised and
have to get cash to survive and keep making good music, people will pay. When they make most of their cash through touring, people will pay. This is the way things will be. Because whatever the record company idiots do, there will always be a way to record what comes out of the speakers and put it into MP3.
So keep pirating, because record companies are noticing but responding the wrong way. With DRM and higher CD prices. Guess what, it might take a while for the mess to clear, but we will emerge with a better industy model and no stupid RIAA cartel. Well, that's what I'm wishing.
