michael saulnier Posted January 10, 2001 Share Posted January 10, 2001 A lot of the posts on this thread have debated the viability of mp3, the quality of mp3, the speed of networks and the time it takes (or not) to download from mp3's. All pretty good points. But it seems to me that Chip's most significant point is... "Additionally, *no one* sees anything wrong with it. It falls squarely into the category of swiping towels from a hotel or getting a $10 bill back instead of a $5 from Taco Bell, socially speaking. My sense is that this is a *now* a permanent attitude that isn't going to change..." I think this hits the nail on the head. It's not a question of how good or how easy mp3's are, or even if another technology supplants it or whatever. It's that kids (and many adults) see nothing wrong in sharing, (stealing) music and there's no social pressure on them to change that attitude. Sure, maybe a few will become audiophiles and decide that "sound quality" is worth paying for... but the majority probably won't share that belief. I'm 41, and as a teen I made many tape copies of my friends albums. They were recorded on pretty inexpensive equipment and were dubbed from the "scratched" albums my friends had... but once we had a tape, we rarely went out to buy the album. Quality wasn't really an issue. In fact, multiple generation tapes were quite often "good enough". Now, I was a guitar player, passionately interested in music, and still... One "real" copy per "clique" was usually enough. The attitude is the same, the difference is... We were maybe a dozen kids. Now with the advent of Napster the "clique" is millions. The genie is out of the bottle and the industry honestly doesn't know what to do with it... Do any of us think the leaders of the major labels are "forward thinking visionaries" or something... hahaha. I agree with Chip that the implications of this should result in a downturn in an industry that so completely depends on "young people" to support it. If the "kids" aren't buying... who's going to? I also applaud the result that the kids are finding new music that is not "pre-packaged" for them as the "cool music". Hopefully the net result of all this will be a decentralized, broad based, change in the way artists present their craft to the world... we can only hope. Right on Chip, and I second Lee's nomination for Chip's "post of the year" award. guitplayer I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alndln Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Sure,we(the public) don't see anything wrong with keeping an easy to deal with file format(Mp3)around forever,however when it comes to new music being released I don't think the record companies share in our enthusiasm,nor do the Artist and companies whose sales are being taken away.Already most major Artists that offer free samples are offering them in WMA which isn't easily converted to Wav. "A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonemonkeyyahoo.com Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Guit- The situation we have today with MP3s and Napster is somewhat analogous to booze during prohibition. During prohibition, many folks owned stills because liquor was unobtainable. As soon as these same folks could walk down to the local liquor store and buy what they wanted at a fair price, most of these backyard stills just disappeared. Today, many of us resort to Napster and MP3 downloads because we either cannot obtain what we want at any price (as in a case of a lot of back catalog stuff) or we don't want to pay $18 for a handful of good songs. In both cases the real answer is for the labels to wake up, accurately value and price their content at what the market will bear and make it available. As demonstrated in my earlier post, I continually demonstrate that I am willing to pay *something* for music I want to own. Continually pricing new content out of my reach and/or holding the content that I want to own hostage is de facto prohibition. I'd gladly pay *something* (probably 50 cents per song) for quality MP3 versions of the stuff I want to own. Until I can do that, I am forced to operate my own "still." The labels are blowing it. Much like VCR rental sales now make or break a theatrical release, MP3 downloads could add significantly to the bottom line but it won't happen at $3 per song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael saulnier Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 tonemonkey, You make some valid points. I agree that the "valuation" of music or any intellectual property has a lot of "elasticity of demand", (God, macroeconomics is coming back to haunt me). In other words, if the price of a CD was say... 5 dollars, or 10 dollars, there's a certain number of people that would buy who otherwise would not at 15 dollars. I'm sure there are economists who make a living consulting with the big record companies to tell them the "optimal" price. I think Chip's point is that the underlying assumptions behind the current pricing is that the record companies control the supply of the product and they should be able to set the price. That works fine in a Non-napster world. But that's no longer a reality. BTW, isn't it funny that all the labels seem to price at the same level... isn't that predatory price fixing... (Sorry for the rant). As idiotic as the leadership of the record industry may be... your point about "VCR rental sales now make or break a theatrical release" has a strong correlation to what's happening now. The growth of video rentals had nothing to do with the geniuses who ran the studios. They wanted us all to BUY copies of their movies for about $80.00 per movie. What happened was the owners of the first video stores in places like NY were losing their asses because NOBODY wanted to spend $80 on a movie. So the RETAILERS decided to allow people the right to "return" a movie they bought for a "preview or restocking" charge of about $2.00. Remember the days when the rental stores would hit your credit card for the full retail price of the movie, then back out the charges... Anyway, the success of this was at first bitterly fought by the studios... lawsuits and such... but the studios lost. And then the idiot studios WON! Because you're right, the huge impact of the pre-sales of rental videos has changed the economics of film production. It's just like how the record companies are trying to stop the technology to allow you to go into a store and to select, burn, and leave with your own "custom cd". Or even to go to the record company website and download any album or track of your choice for a fee. The technology exists to make this a widespread reality, but the powers that be fear losing control and profits so it will take a revolution like the MP3 one to shake them up enough to make this happen. Anyway, we live in interesting times and I predict we will find that the "market" not the "industry" will eventually win the tug-of-war. guitplayer I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dansouth Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 I'd like to say that this has been a most informative thread with many well articulated posts led off by Chip's Pulitzer calibre opus. I'm still collecting my thoughts on this issue, but here are a few of them in their infancy. I agree that MP3's - shared or sold - are good for getting access to obscure or out of print material. If you can't buy it in the store, the artist wasn't earning anything anyway. I agree also that record companies would do everyone a favor - including themselves - by offering these recordings as MP3 downloads. Think the "on demand" nature of Napster, et al. is positive and fosters a more sophisiticated listener community. It gives you a change to try before you buy and to sample music from around the world. Napster's audience will not be kids forever, and some of them will become serious CD/audio-DVD collectors in the future, spending real money on the real thing. Artists can entice customers with MP3's and offer premiums for buying the CD - autographs, personally signed letters, photos, etc. And what is this crap about ripping off the artists, anyway? If a CD sells for $17.99US, how much of that actually ends up in the artist's pocket? A buck? Less? Artist compensation will work out in the long run, but I would love to see the leeches in the middle starved out of business as more direct-download sales channels become available. This message has been edited by dansouth@yahoo.com on 01-11-2001 at 01:16 AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonemonkeyyahoo.com Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Guit- Great points about the economics of it all. You and I are definitely on the same page. However... >>I'm sure there are economists who make a living consulting with the big record companies to tell them the "optimal" price.<< I wish that were true. Unfortunately, I suspect that the only dialog on pricing occurs between a bunch of lawyers with too blow up their nose. I can hear it now... "every cut in our catalog is pure gold man - no way were letting any of this primo stash go for less than $3 per song." I'll just say that overestimating the value of one's content is the single biggest mistake I see businesses make time and time again. For example, cable operators reason that if someone would rent a movie for $4 that they should be willing to pay that much to watch it on pay per view. WRONG! PPV requires a proprietary box (which I have to pay for), you can't pause it to answer the call of nature and you can't begin watching it whenever you like. If PPV purveyors would grasp this and charge say $1 per movie I bet their revenues would go up exponentially (there'd be an incentive to rent the box). I could cite many, many, many more examples. The real money is in volume sales. Price it to move and you'll make $$$ so fast you won't be able to count it. No one in the media biz gets that. No one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael saulnier Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 tone- Yeah, you're right about the greedy corporate executives... Unfortunately the reality is that even if they weren't greedy bloodsuckers, they have to answer to their shareholders (who typically don't care much about "artists" but do care about stock prices), and who put pressure on the executives each quarter to "make the numbers", so... the executives are NEVER going to willingly take the position that their established "price per track" should be reduced in any tangible way... Imagine the loss in the stock value if they did! (And isn't that what's really important anyway?) "oh and by the way... which one's Pink?" So... the only way for this to change is if they "can't help it". Personally, I don't think mp3's will be the backbreaker. My guess will be the upcoming digital convergence or whatever it gets called. I know that this is still kind of sci-fi, but to me, the only financial opportunity big enough to be worth "breaking" the system for, (or that could realistically break it), would be a broadband pay per listen, download, or view system that literally had a virtually unlimited catalog. As Dansouth pointed out, if most artists could earn a couple of bucks for each cd's worth of music, it might actually pay to move away from the "system". Granted, there's the issue of marketing, but if there were easy access to a tens of thousands of narrow focused "personal content stations" where anyone who wanted to could "broadcast" music they liked... perhaps on a subscription or commercially backed "free" basis, and you get a new way of doing business. In addition, If artists were willing to put a certain amount of material out there for a low price or free, there would be a virtual "flood" of music available for "free" airplay. We're not too far from the technical ability to pull this off. I agree infrastructure has to be built out, but the money for this is being invested. I think it's just a matter of time. When you consider the financial potential of for example paying say $.05 for the opportunity to view and save a concert from your favorite artist, live, while it happens somewhere in the world. Now consider 500 million potential customers. Oh, and they are doing 50 shows on this year's tour, so the hardcore fans will want to see them all, and the medium core ones will wait for the "greatest hits" compilation to come out... ad nauseam... OK, so it won't all be great, but it could dramatically change the way we consume music and television, it's got the potential for small, independent producers of content to get their product in the "channel" and there's so much money in it that it seems the greedy will want to make it happen. Of course the "powers that be" will try their best to control this, and they probably will at first, but in the end, I think it will be so easy and financially lucrative for artists to "break free" from the "system" that they will. Forever. Wouldn't you like to have a complete video library of any television show, movie, cd track, and potentially millions of "amateur" content of every kind a click away? Me too. I predict the job of "content sorter" will be a new and diverse industry with "celebrity" CJ's, (Content Jockeys) having massive followings... I bet I could program something far better than any "FM radio station" and I bet most of you could as well. Aaaak... let me off my soapbox... guitplayer I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphajerk Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 "In addition, If artists were willing to put a certain amount of material out there for a low price or free, there would be a virtual "flood" of music available for "free" airplay." um, this already exists as does most of your post @ mp3.com. free to the end user, there is a FLOOD of music to DL there that artists voluntarily put up along with user radio stations [thousands] to choose from. and despite what the media says, there is some damn good music up there. but dont expect to find it at the top of the charts [its amazing how shit floats so you really cant blame the industry for putting it out entirely, maybe for programming the public to like shit...] sure you have to sift through tons of crap but i have to do that at the record store. at least now im in the comforts of my own home. two things lacking though right now, im not broadband connected so its pointless for me to use it right now and two, they dont offer uncompressed audio. there are links to other sites for selling them but places want too much to sell your CD. i mean that place has GOT to be an A&R guys wet dream. imagine the time saved. cross referenced by region and genre with current consumer popularity built in. alphajerk FATcompilation "if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curve Dominant Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 >>I know that this is still kind of sci-fi, but to me, the only financial opportunity big enough to be worth "breaking" the system for, (or that could realistically break it), would be a broadband pay per listen, download, or view system that literally had a virtually unlimited catalog.<< Ya want sci-fi? In the future, digital music files (the future version of MP3) will have digital watermarks mixed in with the negative spaces of the mix as a sort of "digital white noise," imperceptable to the human ear. When you download a song, your server will pick up the watermark, bill you for the download, and forward a cut to the artist, just like the current "pay-per-view" system that cable TV offers. These downloads will be CD quality. Bear in mind that this is NOT SDMI (a joke) that I'm talking about, it will be way more sophisticated than that. MP3's, like vinyl and tape, will still exist, and Napster-like sights will still offer free MP3 downloads, posted at the artist's discretion and as a source of checking out obscure "unsigned" acts. This entire thread has ignored one simple fact: That just as technology can evolve to a level where free music can be had, it can also evolve to a level where that music can be charged for. All the frustrated musicians in the world venting at the "mainstream music industry" are not going to change the basic economic principles that drive the direction of innovations in technology. And it's not as if CD sales have dropped since Napster came around; on the contrary, CD sales have continued to increase, probably BECAUSE of Napster and MP3.com. It's like radio for the internet. If ya'll wanna sit around making mix CD's all day, fine, but some of us have lives. A few of us even work! Go figga... Eric Vincent (ASCAP) www.curvedominant.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alndln Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 I didn't ignore the fact that the companies are going to profit and change the game at all,in fact that's what my point about file formats changing was all about,you(Curve) just pointed out a more realistic way of harnessing the profit off new releases.Also I somewhat take issue about the artist not being hurt financially,well last I looked only a small amount of artists are actually singed to some sort of company,most are putting out the product themselves.Also survey's are just that,survey's.I personally know lots of musicians(artists)who are really hurting big time who put out their own product out at a fair price and that's what I see with my own eyes.The next time your'e about to release one of your own products and your'e made aware of a new format that can't be ripped to Wav. or Aiff. so easily,or at least by the average Joe are you going to consider it? Or are you just going to hand over your masters and say "rip away boy's and girls,because there's plenty more where that came from".No matter what a survey tells us I don't know anybody(artists)that wouldn't jump to a new format. "A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 >>I agree with Chip that the implications of this should result in a downturn in an industry that so completely depends on "young people" to support it. If the "kids" aren't buying... who's going to?<< Humans have been making music for thousands of years. The concept of capturing it, bottling it, and selling it has existed in mass form for less than a century, and only really came into its own with the advent of the 78 RPM record. Music has always been about PLAYING FOR PEOPLE. This point was brought home to me, again (I'm slow sometimes!) when I did my presentation at MacWorld on remixing with laptops. Most of the people were not really familiar with loop-based music. At the end of the presentation, I set up 10 samplers in Reason, mixed 'em with a Peavey PC-1600, and let loose. It wasn't the best mix I'd ever done; it wasn't the worst. But when I pulled back on the master fader, the audience couldn't help applauding. I had a LOT more fun than if they had bought my CD and played it in their home. And I was able to bend the mix to fit the mood - something I can never do with a CD. I enjoy the studio and producing music. But I have to admit I like playing live better. Maybe the whole point of the MP3 revolution isn't to drive the record companies out of business. Maybe it's designed to drive people back into the concert halls and clubs. I have a really hard time getting booked for the type of music I do here in the US. If I had an MP3 that was being downloaded all over the place and people saw I was playing in their area, would that translate into a bigger audience? Hmmm.... Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted January 11, 2001 Author Share Posted January 11, 2001 First off, I want to thank the Academy and Mr. Sinatra fo... I mean, thanks to everyone for all the kudos... Originally posted by Anderton: is also the message. There's an element of, well, craftsmanship and/or ritual (take your pick) in finding songs on the net and burning a CD...it's the mix tape phenomenon. / Not only that, but it offers that warm hacker-geek vibe that sucked a lot of people into computers back in the nascent era of BBS's. It's a ritual, but it's also something.. hmm... it's probably the first time a lot of people have been hooked up to the Net and have realized that "hey.... there's a *lot* of people on the planet RIGHT NOW, and I'm about to do a transaction with one that is "somewhere", probably awake, who has a passing similarity of interests". But it's removed, and somewhat mysterious: you never know *who* that other person is. After a generation grows up with the Net that might not be such a freshly curious thing, but I think right now that actually plays a role in the whole phenomenon. It's something akin to the state of mind a ham radio buff gets into, when asking "how's the radio there in Sumatra?" or some such... Or maybe back in the days of when telephones were based on "party lines"; I remember talking to my grandmother about people's perspective on that back then... Typing in the name of a band, maybe an obscure one, and finding some punter from "?" has the exact thing you're looking for - that's not found at record stores now (anymore - one expects the corporate selection alone, doesn't one these days?) I think people miss that with CDs. Hmm, I suppose that's what I just said in a rambling obfuscated manner.... You know, when I was a kid record stores had a good bit more randomness to them, like an underground/college record store has now. There was the chance that in that bin you were going to look in, there may be some oddball import or one-off something or another you didn't know about. With vinyl, you had to lift the needle to play cuts, flip the record over, clean it... there was an element of ritual there too. Additionally - when a kid downloads a song, he never knows when it might get cut off. He may not get the whole thing. Or - maybe something he saw the previous night isn't online tonight; but the next night. Or maybe it's a bad rip, or "?" That makes the music more precious, even though it's effectively being stolen. When a person listened to records, there was a fairly *intensive* process involved: get the record out, open the dust jacket, carefully remove it, raise the lid on the turntable, place the record, clean the record, THEN press play (or lift the needle). Be careful not to bump the turntable, or even walk on the floor too hard near it. On top of that, maybe that favorite record had a peculiar scratch in it - and you knew right where it was, and *sometimes* it would play without catching the scratch... and that was "good". .. Or sometimes, like the dropped download, it would get stuck, stuck, stuck, stuck. Plus, to replay one side of the record the music had to STOP, cold for a moment while the turntable cycled back. Made some sound as it did maybe, and if you're laying there in bed at night half asleep you heard it do that. CD players don't do that. Random song access? Nope. So - you didn't bother with all that for throw away music, did you? At the same time, that process had some sort of bonding effect: you *knew* where all of those scratches were on the record when you looked at the jacket, right? Sounds very sentimental, but music has been psychologically devalued in a way when one can just throw a cd in a slot and press "play". The CD itself is literally bulletproof; you can drop a cd on the floor, no big deal. A vinyl record was virtual black gold: you handled it a certain way, kept it out of dust and sunlight, away from heat, stored in an upright position. Teleport people from 500 b.c. to now and ask them what a person was doing while going through the process of playing a vinyl record, they probably would have thought the they were *worshipping* those black objects in some sort of religious ceremony... I think something people don't like about CDs is that the element of ritual is missing. I really should read ahead before I type these epic posts, shouldn't I? http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael saulnier Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 >>Originally posted by Anderton: Music has always been about PLAYING FOR PEOPLE.<< Yes, but not only. Recorded music is a special relationship between the artist and the listener that is different, (not better) than Live performance. It lets us cross time and space barriers and provides an opportunity for the artist to create a piece of art that may not be possible in a live setting. I'm a huge Hendrix fan, but without recorded music I would never have experienced Hendrix since I never saw him live. Also he's the perfect example of using the studio in a way that would be challenging in a live setting. I mean it's hard to imagine parts of Electric Ladyland being played live. >>I enjoy the studio and producing music. But I have to admit I like playing live better.<< No question in my mind that for the "artist", nothing matches live performance. On the Jazz series tonight Artie Shaw says "Playing music is better than sex, better than food... better than anything". AMEN! >>Maybe the whole point of the MP3 revolution isn't to drive the record companies out of business. Maybe it's designed to drive people back into the concert halls and clubs.<< Wouldn't that be great if it were the case? >>I have a really hard time getting booked for the type of music I do here in the US. If I had an MP3 that was being downloaded all over the place and people saw I was playing in their area, would that translate into a bigger audience? Hmmm....<< I gotta believe that if more people are exposed to your music, more people are going to be interested in hearing you play. Make an mp3 demo of the laptop based remixes like you did in SF and we'll all check it out... and tell a friend, I promise! guitplayer I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted January 11, 2001 Author Share Posted January 11, 2001 Originally posted by Lee Flier: Heehee... guess you haven't heard about the wireless networks that are under development. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif No, I have, it's just my understanding there's limitations - line of sight for the long range IR systems, limited available bandwidth for RF? I think a friend told me there's a pair of buildings - one on one side of a street and one on the other - in Atlanta actually that uses some wireless scheme for a LAN. Didn't know you were in Augusta Chip; I'm in Atlanta and have a good friend who's from Augusta, an engineer now living in Nashville. We oughta hook up sometime! Hmm.. I can think of a number of people that fits that description; there's a lot of Augusta transplants in your town! It's been awhile since I've been to Atlanta (I think the last time was last year when the Impressionism painting tour rolled through the High museum; did you go to that? (I understand it sold out, like a rock concert: "Hellloooo Atlantaaaaaaa!!!! Are you ready to contemplate??!!! Let's hear it for the opening act, RENNNNNOIR! Ok, and now for who you've all been waiting for.... you know him for hits like "Water Lilies" and "Garden at Argenteul".. Get ready for CLAUDE-MO-NEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!!!!!) VERY inspiring - musically even, you're lucky to have such neat things in town. The best visually colorful thing we have here are randomly colored sunsets depending on what chemicals are in the air the factories spew out that day...). I'll shoot you some email. http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted January 11, 2001 Author Share Posted January 11, 2001 Originally posted by guitplayer: friends had... but once we had a tape, we rarely went out to buy the album. Quality wasn't really an issue. In fact, multiple generation tapes were quite often "good I suppose I was weird; I remember hating tapes because they didn't sound as good a records when I was a kid. I categorized music as follows: A) Music I might want to hear now and again, and didn't mind only having it on cassette. B) Music I *knew* I would listen to repeatedly, and wanted the best quality for the best experience. I bought the record for that. In this case I didn't consider situation "A" as stealing: I wouldn't have bought those records if it were not for tape. I think this isn't too far off the mark for a lot of people I knew at the time as a kid (although most people my age back then spent their money on trampolines or a better bike or some such). What I should have said is to qualify what's going on now, which is different: for most kids *now*, the first instinct when they want "New Music" *isn't* to go buy it, but to download it. I remember thinking as a kid there was still something slightly taboo about asking to borrow someone's record to make a tape, you know? Something unspoken, but still there; people probably don't remember what I'm talking about. It had to be a casual thing, "no big deal" - because you never (at least in my circle) just said "I'm just going to borrow that record and tape it when it comes out instead of buying it". You didn't do it as well; it was just kind of "not the right thing". But the difference was: records killed the quality of cassette tapes. Another difference was parents were halfway concerned about instilling morallity in their kids: it *was* kind of considered stealing back then, and now it isn't. I know, I've just reiterated what I've already said... I agree with Chip that the implications of this should result in a downturn in an industry that so completely depends on "young people" to support it. If the "kids" aren't buying... who's going to? Well, I've just had another thought (hard to believe, huh?) regarding that: just as were are presently experiencing the deflation of the artificial "dotcom" bubble, I think a large portion of the current industry market share is over inflated. What I mean by that is that the sales numbers of N'Sync and so forth don't reflect impulse buying based on successful media propaganda. That some of the people who most of their (probably short) life have spent their money on generic music that they *thought* they wanted, doesn't mean that if you took away the media-manipulated social pressure to buy what's "cool" they will still want to hear the same stuff. That's why I hope if something good comes from Napster, it will be the potential for a lot of people to learn how to *love* music, not just possess it (yes, I acknowledge that's a self-centric cynical view). Thanks for the kudos... Man, yet another novel. These little edit windows make you think you've only written a paragraph or so... http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted January 11, 2001 Author Share Posted January 11, 2001 Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com: And what is this crap about ripping off the artists, anyway? If a CD sells for $17.99US, how much of that actually ends up in the artist's pocket? A buck? Less? I agree, I think the awareness of that plays into the issue as well. But also the transient nature of music styles and artists: kids are probably ironically more likely to buy a CD from an artist they feel is going to be around for awhile - and is *probably* financially well off. Again, the devaluation of music - kids have bought into the generic-disposable philosophy wholly. They don't care about stealing New Shiny Tattooed Punk Band's new CD, because they know A) It's like a flavor of Kool-Aid: it's real good for a few swallows, then it gets old. B) They're probably going to be old hat next year: no one will want their CD anyway. C) The band will be flipping burgers like they themselves are eventually: they're not going to return the favor, are they? The bands that are viewed as generic and disposable - BANDS THAT ARE PERCEIVED TO ACTUALLY HAVE *musical* TALENT - like Dave Matthews Band - they download the bootlegs, but they also religiously buy the new CD's. So again, if the industry wants to fix things - change the philosophy, give the public music and musicians people want to feel responsible about, not a new haircut. Because when it comes down to it, "new music" is really about the haircut, isn't it? http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphajerk Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 mmmmm. but if its electric kool-aid... i got nothin to say. chip about covered it all. the whole mp3 issue this is a big fuss about nothing. alphajerk FATcompilation "if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael saulnier Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 I feel I was lucky that my family moved to Madison, WI when I was 15. It was a college town with 45,000 students in a city of (at the time) only 150,000 total population. So the "college kids" had a huge influence in the local culture. The drinking age was 18 at the time, and there was a thriving local music scene I later joined. They had the greatest radio station I had or have ever heard. They called themselves "Radio Free Madison" and they were funded primarily as a tax write-off for the local newspaper. I arrived around 1976 and the only music I had been exposed to was the AM radio stuff I and my friends listed to in Stamford, CT, (basically a NYC suburb). Two simple rules at the station, 1) Never play a track within 30 days after playing it on the air. (so NO repetition). 2) The FM Top 40 list was the DO NOT PLAY list. (So NO TOP 40.) Although they had the "write-off" money from the newspaper, they were a commercial station and did sell ads and so on... I'd guess they were about the 4th or 5th most listened to station... but were #1 with the college demographic. Each year they did a listener's poll to name the top 10 albums of all time... They played them one night "uninterrupted" and "of course" we recorded them off the broadcast... I still feel the influence of the top 5 albums from the 1977 list on me... 1) Electric Ladyland - Jimi Hendrix 2) Live at Fillmore East - The Allman Bros. 3) Layla - Derek and the Dominoes 4) The White Album - The Beatles 5) Physical Graffiti - Led Zeppelin They also introduced me to a huge number of artists that, as a uninformed kid, I had never heard before... Al DiMeola, Dixie Dregs, Rory Gallagher, Roy Buchannon, Blue Oyster Cult, Joe Pass, Frank Zappa, Robin Trower, Steely Dan, and hundreds more... And because of the "no repeat for 30 days" rule, they played thousands of tracks that probably never got airplay on many commercial stations. It was this influence that gave me a broad appreciation for music and drove me to decide to become a player. A couple of years after I moved to SOCAL in 1983, I heard they sold the station, changed the format... and for me an era was gone. If I ever get the chance to "return the favor" I will certainly jump at the opportunity. If Napster and mp3's can have the same effect on some kids as the freedom and education I got from this station... I say let 'em rip! How did all of you learn about your "favorite" acts? guitplayer I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dansouth Posted January 12, 2001 Share Posted January 12, 2001 Originally posted by Chip McDonald: It's been awhile since I've been to Atlanta (I think the last time was last year when the Impressionism painting tour rolled through the High museum; did you go to that? (I understand it sold out, like a rock concert: "Hellloooo Atlantaaaaaaa!!!! Are you ready to contemplate??!!! Let's hear it for the opening act, RENNNNNOIR! Ok, and now for who you've all been waiting for.... you know him for hits like "Water Lilies" and "Garden at Argenteul".. Get ready for CLAUDE-MO-NEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!!!!!) You are a CARD, my friend! Keep the novelettes coming! I hope you're putting some of these entertaining essays up on your web site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.