Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Interviews
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Martin Orford August 2009
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMartin Orford August 2009

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 13>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 18:25
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


And through necessity that's what all artists are doing, they know they cannot make the problem go away so they are working around it. But that doesn't mean they have to be happy about it, swallow every justification that d/loaders make or treat them fairly for having put the artist in that situation.


If they want to alienate parts of their potential fanbase, they're certainly entitled to do so. It just seems rather dumb.

I do not believe that whatever an artist says will alienate any of their potential fanbase - it never has in the past and it won't in the future. There is a degree of separation between artist and public that generally makes the public think that it doesn't apply to them personally.


Actually , Judas Priest's complaints in the mid 80s about how they should be getting more attention and success because of Iron Maiden was doing ( i.e. ripping off) what JP had been doing before (double leads, bye bye blues influences etc) did cost them some fans. Who cares for a wuss in leather ? Mind you , this was before Ram It Down ...
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 18:19
ooh, wait, maybe this is better

P2Per - I'll download the IQ album from XXX this time, because I want to buy the new Social Distortion CD. I'll buy the next IQ release. Oh wait, Lemmy's got a new side project that I'm going to buy, and I just downloaded these 5 bands that I read about. I'll wait until I've given them all a good listen ...


Purchaser - I wish I could buy that new Riverside release, 'cause i really love Rapid Eye Movement. But they've started putting out re-issues of some Acid Mothers Temple albums, and i always wondered if they were good or not. Oh, and I want to get that special limited edition that X put out before it's out of stock ...

not to condone the first, nor to condemn the second ... but to ask if we stretching ourselves thin trying to get everything.

Speaking as one in the first group, I find that at times my non-purchases take up enough time that i don't see the point in buying that new CD. Then I end up with a list of some 20 "to-buys" that I work on for a year, all the time adding some and deleting some as time goes by.

The second group, i will not put words into their mouth. But i wonder if low cost downloads, streaming , or subscription services might not help fill that urge to search out new things, to the detriment of the known familiar.

I could always mention group
 # 3 a)- i bought everything. I quit work, i don't sleep, i wear Depends and get food through an IV. leave me alone, I'm going through the Uriah Heep compilation / best of / live compilation / best of best of box set releases today & tomorrow;

and 

3 b)Yeah man,  I have downloaded everything i could find. Tomorrow, I'm going to buy my 4th 25 mega lotta Giga byte hard drive for $300 so I can download more free music. Can you help me move my couch to the basement so i can fit the hard drive on top of my computer desk ? I'm sure i have Otto Bekker's sole 1971 raga release. Hmm , what folder ? What drive ? Under what name ? Give me a day or two. I'd like to listen to it myself.

the above are meant as satire and in no way diminish the legalities of illegal downloads.


"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 17:57
As an aside ... (originally edited from 4 paragraphs)
 is it possible that the very abundance that is available legally and illegally serves to make us overlook or pass over releases that we feel we don't have time to get to ?

If i buy 3-4 CDs that I really want, download illegally another 3-4 ( or more)  - am I really going to have as much motivation to go get the new Agalloch that I wanted, seeing that my listening time is pretty much booked for the next little while ?
If I buy 3-4 CDs, then  pick up 3-4 re-issues of long out of print obscurities because I'm love searching out lost treasures, am I going to forget that Saga put out a new CD ?

Not to condone the first, nor to condemn the second. Just to say that our new found wealth of riches , like all other niche genres (i.e. everything outside the top 40 mainstream), means that we've become gourmands that can stuff our faces at the table . er, maybe this will make more sense ...

I go to an all you can eat buffet ... I eat mussels, chicken wings, cod in batter, shrimp in batter, french fries, chicken balls (in batter) because it doesn't matter, I paid what I paid, I ate what I ate. I pay my bill and think - "you know, I really could have eaten more mussels and fried chicken if i hadn't filled on that fish / shrimp / chicken in batter."(batter being very filling)
My buddy tears into the buffet and gets two plates too. But he gets a little bit of mussels, chicken, some beef noodles, chop suey, lentils in garlic, won ton soup, pork riblets, tries out the new items on the menu - patates au gratin and shrimp egg foo yung. Then goes, "you know, next time I come here, I'm not going to bother with the egg foo yung. It was good, but I like the pork riblets & mussels more".

Here's to hoping it makes more sense on this page than in my mind ...
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 17:24
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


And through necessity that's what all artists are doing, they know they cannot make the problem go away so they are working around it. But that doesn't mean they have to be happy about it, swallow every justification that d/loaders make or treat them fairly for having put the artist in that situation.


If they want to alienate parts of their potential fanbase, they're certainly entitled to do so. It just seems rather dumb.

I do not believe that whatever an artist says will alienate any of their potential fanbase - it never has in the past and it won't in the future. There is a degree of separation between artist and public that generally makes the public think that it doesn't apply to them personally.
What?
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 16:00
Fantastic post, debrewguy. Absolutely fantastic. I stand humbled and awed.

Edit: I just want to point out that I'm being 100% sincere here.


Edited by Teaflax - October 04 2009 at 16:02
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 15:41
If I may take a step back here and try to re-present my point :

1) I don't believe illegal downloads are the one and only reason for the big drop in CD sales. They are one of many factors. And I do not believe that middle tier bands come out ahead because of P2P. But neither is it killing the ones with a devoted fanbase.

2) Many acts are striving to see what they can do to make their offerings attractive vs the ultimate bargain price - free. They aren't sitting on their arse complaining. They're out there working. Special or limited edition releases; high quality concert DVDs ; closer, more personal contact (yes, it is possible through the web); the honesty shown in knowing  the privilege they have in making a living doing what they love to do; and yes, a humble acknowledgement that they need to work to earn people's hard earned money, that they appreciate their fans choosing to support them.

3) the reality that today, time & effort is better spent on the above (#2)  than complaining about the competitive environment. How many people buy something from a manufacturer or retailer because the business says things are unfair ? Give me someone who's out there working to get people to spend their money on something they see the value in. Yeah, I can get their album for free. But this band, I'm buying, 'cause I got some free download of outtakes. Or a regular email (as authorized by the recipient) just sharing what's new or what's up with the band. Mostly , though, 'cause this album is worth every penny I paid. I'm still listening to their release from ten years ago.

4)  the musician has always faced obstacles - lack of label support, radio air play , not pretty enough for MTV, no hits, too far from major markets , the singer's a druggie, manager rips us off , etc. You do what you can with what you have to work with and have no choice but to live with the results, be they what they may. Fair or unfair. Complaining won't change things, and will most likely alienate more people than attract them to your cause.

5) And people, myself included, there is also the passionate music fan's challenge ... how do we help our idols or favourites continue making the music we enjoy ? Not by buying albums out of sympathy. Not by fighting with people over things that we cannot change. Not by bemoaning the fact that others are too ignorant or lack taste to go and buy a prog CD or concert ticket.

Buying the music or ticket helps. But you can do more. And it doesn't cost you anything. Prefer downloads ? Loved such and such extra on their latest DVD ? Wish they played in your area ?   Or ,a pet peeve of mine - having to pay $15 more for the concert DVD 'cause it comes with a CD. Let 'em know . Why ? Feedback ! No marketing firm required. The band can then reply explaining why or why not, or share plans that they may have. Let them know, you're the customer. It's your money, their livelihood. You work for yours, they do too. Businesses want feedback from their clients. You're the client, tell them what you think.

Share your enthusiasm for the band. Don't push it on people. If I'm playing Napalm Death for a drinking buddy and he doesn't like it, I'll take it out of the CD player. The acoustic Strawbs concert four years ago meant 10 more people from my hometown went to the electric Strawbs show this spring. The ones who went to the first one raved about it, which got others interested in going. They shared their enthusiasm, no arguing or insisting that all listen. They didn't dismiss those who didn't care. You never know what effect a positive word from a friend carries. Or the damage that a negative attitude can cause when it comes to creating a first impression.

"The Buckalucks should be selling millions, but they're not cause people are too stupid to buy their album / radio doesn't know what's good / this town sucks when they can't even bother to go out & see this great band"
Yeah, I'm rushing out to buy the album, eh


"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 14:31
I would like to apologise to Nick Barrett for comments that I have posted here these past few days. I was reviewing the interview that I did with him early this year and found no bitterness there, no sour grapes, no failing band. Indeed, his one comment about illegal downloads was simply how it affected middle tier acts that rely more on record sales than anyone else. More or less, here's the reality, and that's what it is.

and just like the simple plea from Marillion regarding illegal downloads  , I must say that his own message is quite polite and without  rancour to any :

"A word from Nick Barrett:

Please do not download our music except that which we have offered here free, or burn CDs of our albums.

Pendragon and Toff Records (our label) are run by the band and we totally rely on record/Cd sales for our existence and future productions.

All our albums are available directly from us via this link.

Thanks,

Nick Barrett"

Following this, I have contacted the band's site  to see if they could help me with  my local record shop - Frank's Music - in being able to order in Pendragon's albums at prices competitive to Amazon.com.  This would mean that I could support both a very important source of music in my area, AND Pendragon, too. They have kindly provided me with some contact info to see what they can work out with the store.

This, my friends, is an example of working to earn your fans' devotion. This is what musical acts that I mention in previous posts do today to ensure their followers know they are appreciated for their support. They work for it.

So, somehow today , I will once more be hinting to my wife how nice it would be to watch Pendragon's Concerto Maximo on my,  oops,  our new home theater in the basement. She missed it for my birthday, although I do appreciate the Robert Charlebois concert DVD/CD "au Grand national - Tout Ecartille" that she got for me instead.

now, where was I with my ranting ...

.


"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 14:19
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


And through necessity that's what all artists are doing, they know they cannot make the problem go away so they are working around it. But that doesn't mean they have to be happy about it, swallow every justification that d/loaders make or treat them fairly for having put the artist in that situation.


If they want to alienate parts of their potential fanbase, they're certainly entitled to do so. It just seems rather dumb.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Okay - open another thread in General Discussions and educate us, because this thread is not the place for discussions on conspiracy theories about "Bad people want to close down the internet"

It's really not my job to educate you on one of the most important issues of the day, but just visit EFF or simply google HADOPI or ACTA (both measures to control and hobble the internet, made very much in the name of aggressive copyright enforcement, but with great potential for other uses). Read writers who specialize in the subject, like Lawrence Lessig or Cory Doctorow.

"Bad people want to close down the internet" was an explanation aimed at getting you to understand what I'd written when I assumed that "I don't follow" was used in its very common colloquial sense of indicating non-understanding. A bit like saying "downloading is stealing" - a childish oversimplfication.


Edited by Teaflax - October 04 2009 at 16:45
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 05:29
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


Now you're getting it. That's exactly what goodwill and convenience is all about; treating fans fairly, giving them opportunity to spend money on extra value and incentive  to pay for what they consume and enjoy. All of that doesn't require impotently railing against illegal downloads, but accepting that they are part of today's reality and adapting accordingly.

And through necessity that's what all artists are doing, they know they cannot make the problem go away so they are working around it. But that doesn't mean they have to be happy about it, swallow every justification that d/loaders make or treat them fairly for having put the artist in that situation. Everybody has the right to complain about injustice whether it is a futile protest or not.

Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

So you're not discussing the very crux of the question. Fine.

But that again confirms what I've been saying about the poor standard of education regarding what's really at stake on the part of those who seem incensed at the very thought of any person anywhere getting anything for free. Especially as it's usually done in the name of artists whose livelihoods by all accounts are nowhere near threatened.
Okay - open another thread in General Discussions and educate us, because this thread is not the place for discussions on conspiracy theories about "Bad people want to close down the internet"
What?
Back to Top
Wilcey View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2696
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 04:02
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:


P.P.S. so you see, Nick & Martin's anger just seems like sour grapes. Others in far more challenging situations are doing it. And most were never part of a nationally prominent music trend in a compact country media wise (the U.K. vs the U.S.) ...



http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=55714

WHERE ARE YOU READING ANGER AND BITTERNESS????? WHERE ARE THESE SOUR GRAPES???


Don't make things up just to make an argument look stronger, you did the interview with Nick, I really am not seeing any of this anger you talk about, reading it again it doesn't look like a band that are not managing.

I thought it was a fairly upbeat interview, it was honest and full of the reality of stuff, highs and lows.

Why would you suddenly claim Nick Barrett to be angry and full of sour grapes? 



Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 00:36
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

What if we get the artists to say "Please"? Would a picture of a kitten help?
 
We are supposed to be a civilised society, honesty and fair play should be enough.


Now you're getting it. That's exactly what goodwill and convenience is all about; treating fans fairly, giving them opportunity to spend money on extra value and incentive  to pay for what they consume and enjoy. All of that doesn't require impotently railing against illegal downloads, but accepting that they are part of today's reality and adapting accordingly.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

No, I didn't explain myself clearly - when I said I don't follow, I mean I'm not following you down that path of discussion. I'm out.


So you're not discussing the very crux of the question. Fine.

But that again confirms what I've been saying about the poor standard of education regarding what's really at stake on the part of those who seem incensed at the very thought of any person anywhere getting anything for free. Especially as it's usually done in the name of artists whose livelihoods by all accounts are nowhere near threatened.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 20:32
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Subsequent re-sale of a CD does not affect the artist - he's already been paid for that CD and he's happy.

So, you're saying that a second-hand purchase does not equal a lost full-price sale? Do you really think so? I'd say it's clearly a lost purchase for the artist,and if they're happy about it, they obviously don't feel to strongly about enforcing the idea of "only full-price paying customers should hear my music".
well, that's two questions, I'll answer the second here and the first in the next thought bubble otherwise I'll have nothing to say in that one.
 
That's not why artists are opposed to illegal filesharing. They don't oppose music stores selling their products at discount prices either, but they are opposed to bootleg CDs.
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

The purchaser recouped some of his outlay by selling off one CD, but not the full sticker-price (unless the value of the CD increased dramatically in the meantime) - he has reduced his loss from 100% to something like 87.5%.


But the artist loses a customer. If you're so opposed to file sharing, you really should be against used record shops as well.
There is only one copy of the CD - the artist has already been paid for it. Once the original purchaser has sold it he no longer has it. There isn't suddenly two copies of the CD in circulation. Selling second hand CDs is not illegal - making a duplicate copy of the CD and selling that is illegal. Which one of those two does filesharing most resemble?
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Eitherway, If free downloads are a good promotional tool, then shouldn't it be the artist decision whether to use that method or not.


Sure. How do you propose to enforce the ability of the artists to decide that?
I don't know - Withdrawl of labour?
 
What if we get the artists to say "Please"? Would a picture of a kitten help?
 
We are supposed to be a civilised society, honesty and fair play should be enough.
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

You've veered way off here and I'm not following.


Bad people want to close down the internet. Those bad people use "think of the poor artists" as one of the main reasons to impose restrictions on and monitor use of the internet. When you say, "Think of the poor artists", you help them. When you help them, you endanger everything that's good about the internet.

And: not wanting bad people to close down the internet is not an endorsement of the net's seedier and less savory aspects.
No, I didn't explain myself clearly - when I said I don't follow, I mean I'm not following you down that path of discussion. I'm out.
What?
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 18:12
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Subsequent re-sale of a CD does not affect the artist - he's already been paid for that CD and he's happy.

 
So, you're saying that a second-hand purchase does not equal a lost full-price sale? Do you really think so? I'd say it's clearly a lost purchase for the artist,and if they're happy about it, they obviously don't feel to strongly about enforcing the idea of "only full-price paying customers should hear my music".

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


The purchaser recouped some of his outlay by selling off one CD, but not the full sticker-price (unless the value of the CD increased dramatically in the meantime) - he has reduced his loss from 100% to something like 87.5%.


But the artist loses a customer. If you're so opposed to file sharing, you really should be against used record shops as well.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Eitherway, If free downloads are a good promotional tool, then shouldn't it be the artist decision whether to use that method or not.


Sure. How do you propose to enforce the ability of the artists to decide that?

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


You've veered way off here and I'm not following.


Bad people want to close down the internet. Those bad people use "think of the poor artists" as one of the main reasons to impose restrictions on and monitor use of the internet. When you say, "Think of the poor artists", you help them. When you help them, you endanger everything that's good about the internet.

And: not wanting bad people to close down the internet is not an endorsement of the net's seedier and less savory aspects.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 16:50
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Confused whose gain would be 400%?


Sorry, bad math, it should be 300%. If downloading causes someone to buy 4x CDs/downloads instead of buying 2x CDs and then selling off 1xCD, the gain is 300%.
No, which ever way you carve it the net income for the artist remains the same and can never exceed 100%. Subsequent re-sale of a CD does not affect the artist - he's already been paid for that CD and he's happy.
 
The purchaser recouped some of his outlay by selling off one CD, but not the full sticker-price (unless the value of the CD increased dramatically in the meantime) - he has reduced his loss from 100% to something like 87.5%.

Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


If someone has 4,000 paid-for and 1,000 unpaid-for tracks on their iPod, who's to say what the proportion would have been if filesharing didn't exist? Maybe they'd only have 2,000 paid-for tracks as they'd never have been exposed to the creators behind the other 2,000 paid ones and the 1,000 unpaid ones. It's all speculation anyway, because short of finding an internet-free Western enclave to measure against, you'll never be certain.
No one can be certain of anything other than human nature, and each human will find a balance between illegal downloads and legal purchases that eases their conscience, and those ratios will differ from person to person so there is no definitive answer to any of this and certainly no "average".
 
Eitherway, If free downloads are a good promotional tool, then shouldn't it be the artist decision whether to use that method or not.
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


The point, again, is what all these proposed restrictions, ostensibly required by the supposed scourge of file sharing, mean in a greater context.

You can oppose the restrictions without thinking that people leeching off of creators is a good thing. If someone suggests arming kids with automatic weapons to protect them from pedophiles, opposing that and pointing out the many dangers of such a policy does not make you pro-pedophilia.

Violent overreaction to a perceived problem is dangerous, and if you're opposed to the reaction itself but still spend time validating the very arguments that its proponents are using, you are effectively on their side.
You've veered way off here and I'm not following.


Edited by Dean - October 03 2009 at 16:51
What?
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 15:57
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Confused whose gain would be 400%?


Sorry, bad math, it should be 300%. If downloading causes someone to buy 4x CDs/downloads instead of buying 2x CDs and then selling off 1xCD, the gain is 300%.

If someone has 4,000 paid-for and 1,000 unpaid-for tracks on their iPod, who's to say what the proportion would have been if filesharing didn't exist? Maybe they'd only have 2,000 paid-for tracks as they'd never have been exposed to the creators behind the other 2,000 paid ones and the 1,000 unpaid ones. It's all speculation anyway, because short of finding an internet-free Western enclave to measure against, you'll never be certain.

The point, again, is what all these proposed restrictions, ostensibly required by the supposed scourge of file sharing, mean in a greater context.

You can oppose the restrictions without thinking that people leeching off of creators is a good thing. If someone suggests arming kids with automatic weapons to protect them from pedophiles, opposing that and pointing out the many dangers of such a policy does not make you pro-pedophilia.

Violent overreaction to a perceived problem is dangerous, and if you're opposed to the reaction itself but still spend time validating the very arguments that its proponents are using, you are effectively on their side.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 15:29
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
Oh btw - my 20% example was total sales for all artists, not 20% for one - in other words a d/loader could download 5 artists and only buy albums from 4 of them - in that respect 4 artists have lost nothing and 1 has lost everything - I think that is the more likely scenario - but, again, no one knows what happens.


Wrong. This assumes that the person would have bought from all five artists in the absence of file sharing, something even you can't believe is true.
This is not about 5 artists or 4 artists but about a d/loader who has 5,000 titles on his iPlod and only paid for 4,000 of them. I just used the simplified example of 5 artists and 4 artists to get away from the use of percentages, (which sounded all too scientific and exact for this particular mindgame), to demonstrate that it does not necessarily mean that each and every artist has suffered an equal loss.

Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

If that person would only have spent money on the two artists he was fairly certain he would like out of that crop of five, then the gain is 100%. If it turned out he didn't like one of them and sold their records on to a second.hand record shop, the gain would be 400%.
Confused whose gain would be 400%?

Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Seriously, the old canard of "one download = one lost sale" has not only been discredited a thousand times over, but doesn't hold up if you think about it for even a second.
Anything taken out of context looks dumb, and I certainly look dumb when you take this particular example out of its context, but in its original context, my example has nothing to do with that old "duck" and at no point did I, or would I ever, make that equation. Tongue
What?
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 13:58
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
Oh btw - my 20% example was total sales for all artists, not 20% for one - in other words a d/loader could download 5 artists and only buy albums from 4 of them - in that respect 4 artists have lost nothing and 1 has lost everything - I think that is the more likely scenario - but, again, no one knows what happens.


Wrong. This assumes that the person would have bought from all five artists in the absence of file sharing, something even you can't believe is true.

If that person would only have spent money on the two artists he was fairly certain he would like out of that crop of five, then the gain is 100%. If it turned out he didn't like one of them and sold their records on to a second.hand record shop, the gain would be 400%.

Seriously, the old canard of "one download = one lost sale" has not only been discredited a thousand times over, but doesn't hold up if you think about it for even a second.
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 13:51
Originally posted by Hercules Hercules wrote:

Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Yet, nearly all niche genres have seen a resurgence and greater overall market share since the advent of file sharing. The amount of Prog released in 2008 easily dwarfs the entire output of the genre from 1970-1975, I would wager.


This might be true (I very much doubt it) but the number of units sold is miniscule by comparison.


Probably true, but my point is that there's obviously something about the way the playing field has changed that has allowed for a greater number of niche acts to get their product out there. That they're not selling like Genesis or Yes at the time is sort of irrelevant (especially since that really was an historical anomaly of monumental proportions)

Yes, some of that is due to recording costs dropping sharply in the last decade, but it's also about how the free flow of information has allowed people to garner information about music they would otherwise not be aware of. To me, whining about supposed losses due to illegal file sharing is the very definition of looking a gift horse in the mouth; the net has created major opportunities for smaller artists and allowed useful things like ProgArchives to spring up. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The one and the other are inextricably linked.

As Dean said above, casual fans are far less likely to spend money on an artist, so the logical conclusion is that art that touches people more directly, that is less of a mass-market product, should see gains from the growth of online and digital culture. I can't see that as being a bad thing at all.

Read manager Don Bartlett's email here for an example. What's needed to succeed today is to move away from a product model to a service model. And incentive to pay for something physical doesn't hurt. NIN sold out of the the 2,500 copies of the Ultra-Limited Edition of Ghosts I-IV at 300 dollars a pop in less than a week. Even assuming manufacturing costs of 150 bucks per, that's a tidy profit of 375 000 dollars.

Go read Techdirt's series on the economics of abundance and the lack of scarcity. (BTW, the system of having to manually remove the http:// from each link created on this board is insanely dumb and annoying) It makes some very  interesting points and even mentions your gut feeling below.

Quote the idea that this whole concept of the economics of abundance makes no sense because it means the creators of content make no money and they have a right to make money for their creative output.

It makes for a compelling emotional argument, but it is wrong on two major points. First, is the idea that it means creators of content can't make any money. In fact, nothing can be further from the truth.


Originally posted by Hercules Hercules wrote:


As a (retired) professional mathematician, I'd love to see the data and methodology from the studies you quoted which demonstrate that file sharing has actually increased sales because it goes completely contrary to all my own gut instincts and the evidence of the musical fraternity. Of course these are highly reputable institutions but they are not immune to errors!


Google should be your friend in finding out how the conclusions were arrived at. I'm fairly sure Harvard, The Swedish Royal Technical College and the Norwegian School of Management have at least some of the numbers up online. It'd be odd if all of those institutions, plus the Dutch Government and Danish Music Rights Board have made errors that all make them reach similar conclusions (odder still would be if they falsified the results, as Shawn implied before he slunk away).

It becomes increasingy clear to me as I have this dicussion, here and elsewhere, that most of those who think that filesharing is a terrible danger have not really read up much on the issue, but instead just react on gut feelings and anecdotal evidence.

It's a fascinating, often counter-intuitive subject and it is a vitally important one, because it feeds into the arguments made around the many current strong pushes around the world to control and curtail the internet. So it has much larger implications than just whether artists can make a living doing what they love or not. I think people should learn to be wary of carrying water for those who would hobble the internet in the name of creative artists they never seemed to care much about before (and still don't - 20th C Fox still routinely violate subtitler's intellectual property rights, even as they crow about how important such issues are).

A sadly necessary disclaimer: I am deeply opposed to what I call immoral file sharing, i.e. enjoying people's works without making sure that they get some form of remuneration.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 12:56
quick one here - if so many people are illegally downloading IQ albums, why aren't they showing up at IQ gigs ? 
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 12:51
As far as the supposed advantages of illegal downloading as a way for a band to gain new fans, I think it's a wash. Yeah, there are people who download one album, then buy the rest of the discography. And there are some that download an album ,and if they like it, they buy it. And yes, many who download don't buy anything. But many of those wouldn't have bought much in the first place. So I think that in the end, apart from new indie acts, no one gains or loses much by having their music downloaded for free. And once more, I repeat - there are a ton of factors that weigh much more heavily in the collapse of CD sales. Our own passion for music does not drive others to keep buying CDs despite their interests in other products.

Oh, btw, we haven't touched on the skewed sales figures for the 80s & 90s. When CDs were being bought by the truckload to replace LPs. When MTV , radio, and print media could push sales of a music product. When new trends came along every year or two to keep the party going. And before a panoply of electronic gadgets came to take their slices of the pie.


As far as touring the U.K. ... well, you work with what you have. If it's not feasible to play unless you can get 400 paying customers, what happens if you can't get 400 paying customers in the first place ? Martin doesn't seem to want to answer that question. You can't download an actual gig. So why wouldn't IQ fans want to pay to see the band, either in the U.K. or on the continent ? No matter what we think of their music, it still seems like there's simply not enough demand for their live shows to warrant a tour of decent size halls. And again, illegal downloads don't affect that. IF it was the only reason, no one would be touring the U.K. . Hell, I've seen pics of Budgie playing small pubs. Iron Maiden did the same. We have gold and platinum selling actsfrom days of old  here in Canada that tour 500-800 seat bars every year or two. But not all of those old fogeys can. Buck 65 can play 5-6 gigs in the Maritimes and do well. Snow can't even do a show in the Maritimes Rap capital - Halifax.

And financing the tour from CD sales is like saying we make money on selling albums to cover our losses on playing gigs. Bands all over North America are selling small runs of LPs and CDs that barely cover costs and still manage to tour regularly to make their living. Indeed, most of those acts that I mention depend on the gigs to survive. That's where they make money - tickets, merchandise, albums even ...

But I have no use for people who preach "P2P" is great for everyone because blah blah blah. It's more complex than that. It is illegal.

But to hear musicians state that illegal downloads are the only reason they can't make money ... well, let them explain to me why they weren't able to generate enough money for major labels to keep them or want them. Back when the industry was booming. That they went indie is great. That they still didn't manage to make enough, even though they were doing that before Napster just stinks of self serving B.S. .
Like it or not, as great as the music may be (or not), if people aren't spending THEIR money on it just means that you find yourself a new line of work. This is not suffering. This is the reality of the workaday life for most of the rest of us. No entitlement due to being an artist.

P.S. a local prog fan could have booked Three Friends here in Moncton. But he need to get 400 people at $20-30 a head to cover it. After consulting with local music freaks, their consensus was that 300 would be a stretch, assuming a mass promotion campaign in all the local indie shops, media, etc; and that there were no other gigs in the Maritimes. And even with that, it was a big maybe. Gentle Giant at their peak, played in Moncton in 1976 at the coliseum. They drew 680.

Yet, Gojira, a heavy metal band has two local 500 seat venues considering booking them. Bad Religion played the Agrena at the Coliseum last fall. Drew over 2000. A band that's been around for ages, and has never had a platinum album. That has been around longer than most of its' current fans.

P.P.S. so you see, Nick & Martin's anger just seems like sour grapes. Others in far more challenging situations are doing it. And most were never part of a nationally prominent music trend in a compact country media wise (the U.K. vs the U.S.) ...
P.P.P.S. Maybe Martin can play piano for the Old 97's. Can he play honky tonk ?


Here in Canada, the obstacle is distance. 400 miles to the next big town or half decent sized city. Where the only reason why you accept to  play to 150 people is that it's on the way to where ever else you're going. You hopefully break even, and pick up a few fans.
In the States, you do have bigger venues. But they don't book a thousand seat hall for you just because you don't want to play a small 150 seat club. If a promoter can make money off the gig, he'll book you in whatever place you want, as long as you can sell enough tickets. But in the States, their big challenge is the sheer mass of people in the place. To play everywhere takes a long time. So you have local, regional stars that take the occasional trip outside their base. SOmetimes they grow the audience, sometimes not.



"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 13>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.229 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.