Doonesbury

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote:
>
> Then there might be issues with the new middleman who will distribute
> this new tax... "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.



I pay a levy every time I buy blank CDs. Ever met even ONE of the
musicians said tax is supposed to compensate?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <tYiUd.4078$LN5.3141@edtnps90> Lorin@DAMNSPAM!v5v.ca writes:

> I pay a levy every time I buy blank CDs. Ever met even ONE of the
> musicians said tax is supposed to compensate?

I know people who are actually getting some money from this fund. If
you do the paperwork, you can get your share. But most musicians,
being musicians, would rather complain about not being fully
compensated for their work than take advantage of what's been built
for them.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 27 Feb 2005 09:48:07 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <7IednWP8lYMitLzfRVn-uA@adelphia.com> opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com writes:
>
>> I think a nice number is 50 years for copyrights. After that, it should be
>> public domain.
>
>How about ten years after the first release? That would give a working
>songwriter a chance to make most of their money on the initial
>release and a few residuals, but wouldn't protect the one-hit-wonder
>who just got lucky.

10 years seems a little short to me. 20 years seems to be about the
time frame when songs get re-recorded, or become popular again as a
nostalgic thing. Many writers make residuals for far longer than 10
years... a friend of mine got a huge check recently when a small
sample of his late-70s minor hit was used on a J-Lo CD.

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 27 Feb 2005 09:48:09 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <0sbUd.8117$Ba3.3123@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> dmainc@earthlink.net writes:
>
>> Cool - then how can we get people to learn that stealing is theft?
>
>Duct-tape ear buds to their head, put in a feeding tube, and make them
>listen to hip-hop for a week.

We all know that doesn't work... people already listen to hip hop
24/7. And hey old man, try to keep your musical predujices and
comtempt under control.

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 27 Feb 2005 09:48:11 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <pug221lfiji59gtqsafcbvu3tokeruen8n@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> Tours are "handed" to people?
>
>In a sense, yes. The record company sets it up and tells the artists
>when to be where. They don't have to carry their own luggage. They
>don't have to drive themselves all night to get to the next gig. They
>get fed. And they know when they can go home.

Yes, but isn't tour support taken as a debt owed to the company? So
in that sense, they aren't "handed" anything, since they are paying
for it.

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 27 Feb 2005 09:48:12 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>> >> Ever heard of the Eurythmics? The cut their first (hit) album on an 8
>> >> track tascam at their home. And that was in the 1980s.
>> >
>> >Yeah, and then they broke up. Didn't Annie Lennox just do music for a
>> >film that's up for an Academy Award?
>>
>> Got me...
>
>So the most important thing you know about them is that they recorded
>their first album at home? Big deal!

Recording *was* what the discussion was about, Mike. Not whether or
not I keep track of them.

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 27 Feb 2005 09:48:13 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>> I do that too, but sometime I want to pick the tunes. What's wrong
>> with that, when I've already paid for them anyway?
>
>Nothing, but what's the point if you're going to be doing something
>while they're playing that takes your concentration away from the
>music?

What are you, the music police? Do I have to listen to music in the
way that you decide is PC? Lighten up!

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 27 Feb 2005 09:48:14 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <9oi221d0b1e12hnvek0l4ngsukos6qlfst@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> I don't know if it's a revolution, but it does portend a huge change.
>> There have been other revolutions that have destroyed industries --
>> assembly line manufacturing, the automation of farming, etc. all threw
>> huge numbers of people out of work for a time and caused serious
>> social upheaval. In comparion to these events, the file sharing thing
>> is small potatos. Everytime something like this happens, things are
>> lost as well as gained, and the world goes on.
>
>Suppose all forms of music distribution were stopped for a few years
>until the industry could come up with a new model? Jobs would be lost,
>product would become scarce in the market, and the world would go on.
>Maybe that would open up the market for live music clubs and there
>would be more gigs for working musicians.
>
>Jimmy Thudpucker again.

Now you are on my side...

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

atlasrecrd wrote:
> Yahoo, huh? What's your expertise on this issue?

This ought to be good.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"atlasrecrd" <atlasrecrd@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109533696.494454.178830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> He didn't say it should be free, Einstein.
>
> And the labels ARE COMPLETELY to blame for this.
>
> 1. They charged too much for CD's and forced kids into figuring out a
> way to get it cheaper.
>
> 2. They promoted one-hit wonders rather than career artists, and
> effectively made popular music worse and people dumber.
>
> I hope they shrivel up and die.
>
> Studios will survive if they're good.


Exactly. Shot themselves in the foot. Karma returning.


--

-Hev
remove your opinion to find me here:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http/www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm really not interested in getting into an pissing match with
obviously
angry people like yourself or Dave Martin. I could, but it's not worth
it. He insulted me and I responded.

No, I haven't heard any of Dave Martin's records. Why don't you post a
link with his credits?

I posted that the reason this all came about was record company greed.
Neither myself or anyone else I've seen here advocates music being
free. I was simply stating that had they not gotten greedy by not
lowering CD prices when their manufacturing costs went down, then
things might not have reached the point they are at.

And thanks guys for bringing testicles, feces and my non-exsistent
family into the conversation. Real classy.


hank alrich wrote:et
> atlasrecrd wrote:
>
> > Yahoo, huh? What's your expertise on this issue?
>
> > I've been making records consumed by the 16-30 group for years. I
know
> > exactly where the money comes from and where it goes with labels.
So I
> > don't need some anonymous dick telling me I don't know the reality
of
> > record making.
>
> > That's great you can afford to buy your Ella Fitzgerald records.
Go
> > talk to kids that like music and ask them if they can just "go out
and
> > buy it" when it costs 18.99. Newsflash, blowhard - kids don't have
that
> > kind of change lying around. Especially in this shitty economy. If
you
> > don't believe me, go find some kids and ask them.
>
> 1. Before you call Dave Martin anonymous, you might engage your
brain.
>
> 2. Before you call him a blowhard, you might check out Java Jive
> Studios.
>
> 3. If you've been making the garbage that's been selling to a market
> that would prefer to steal it, you are part of the problem, not part
of
> the solution. Apparently your market has figured out what your
product
> is worth.
>
> 4. If your testicles were fully descended you wouldn't be the one
> posting anonymously. But you are that one.
>
> 5. Those kids never did have that kind of money, unless they also had
> jobs, and most of the kids buying the music aren't going to get jobs
> until their parents boot them out of the crib. The kids buying the
> records are buying with their parent's money.
>
> --
> ha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm really not interested in getting into a pissing match with
obviously angry people. I could, but it's not worth it. He insulted me
and I responded.

Dave's studio looks nice, but you're right, I haven't heard any of his
recordings. Why don't you post a link to some?

I posted that the reason this all came about was record company greed.

Neither myself or anyone else I've seen here advocates music being
free. I was simply stating that had they not gotten greedy by not
lowering CD prices when their manufacturing costs went down, then
things might not have reached the point they are at.

And thanks guys for bringing testicles, feces and my nonexistent
family into the conversation. Real classy.



hank alrich wrote:
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
> > atlasrecrd wrote:
> > > Yahoo, huh? What's your expertise on this issue?
>
> > This ought to be good.
>
> A guy posting anonymously who can't figure out that Dave Martin is
Dave
> Martin is going to present some cogent discussion? I read it as if
> atlasrecord's kids can't afford to buy CD's. Wonder how that happens?
>
> --
> ha

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gsni1z.19yzc85j3j0xbN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> Hev wrote:
>
>> Imagine for a moment that a website existed that contained links to all
>> music, movies, & software ever created for free. Obviously the demand to
>> have access to all of this would be enormous. Subscription services that
>> distribute royalties per download seems like a good bet. It would limit
>> the
>> need for P2P (peer to peer) networks because downloading from a site is
>> SO
>> much faster than P2P. The demand to be included on that centralized
>> website
>> would be enormous as well, so a listing fee is likely.
>
> The stuff on that site will be hacked to let folks in free, or it will
> be posted elsewhere almost immediately, available for free


It doesn't matter if you have it all available in a centralized location.
The resources it would take to host such a large volume of files would be
beyond even a hackers reach.


--

-Hev
remove your opinion to find me here:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http/www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gsnip0.15f4me040divmN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> Hev wrote:
>
>> Mike rivers wrote:
>
>> > Perhaps then your generation should seek out music created by computer
>> > that doesn't involve any human interaction. Then nobody would need to
>> > be paid - except the computer manufacturers. The fact that computers
>> > are involved in just about any musical production these days doesn't
>> > mean that they replace the talent, however. But they don't have to
>> > eat and they don't take up much room.
>
>> If you aren't going to say anything why don't you keep it to yourself?
>
> He said something, and you obviously don't get it.


That he loves music more than this generation and that we should seek music
created by computers. Yeah. Loud and clear.


--

-Hev
remove your opinion to find me here:
www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com
http/www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <nkc4219cdsnscuofcjqtm2qchg19a5bjj5@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> >Nothing, but what's the point if you're going to be doing something
> >while they're playing that takes your concentration away from the
> >music?
>
> What are you, the music police? Do I have to listen to music in the
> way that you decide is PC? Lighten up!

I'm only saying that under the circumstances (being distracted with
real work) there's no compelling need to listen to a specific piece of
music because you're not really listening to it anyway.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 27 Feb 2005 20:38:58 -0500, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>
>In article <nkc4219cdsnscuofcjqtm2qchg19a5bjj5@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
>> >Nothing, but what's the point if you're going to be doing something
>> >while they're playing that takes your concentration away from the
>> >music?
>>
>> What are you, the music police? Do I have to listen to music in the
>> way that you decide is PC? Lighten up!
>
>I'm only saying that under the circumstances (being distracted with
>real work) there's no compelling need to listen to a specific piece of
>music because you're not really listening to it anyway.

How the hell do you know?

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <s6c42154f6dufljoaso9me0eu048rmnudq@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> 10 years seems a little short to me. 20 years seems to be about the
> time frame when songs get re-recorded, or become popular again as a
> nostalgic thing. Many writers make residuals for far longer than 10
> years... a friend of mine got a huge check recently when a small
> sample of his late-70s minor hit was used on a J-Lo CD.

My point is that long term residuals shouldn't really be an
entitlement. Once the song is out and the initial money is made, let
someone else have a crack at it. I think this will encourage
songwriters to write more good songs rather than write one that will
allow them to retire on the long term royalties.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <hfc4211vesoek63heb85due7ivga2vfd6g@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> Yes, but isn't tour support taken as a debt owed to the company? So
> in that sense, they aren't "handed" anything, since they are paying
> for it.

It depends on whether you're an accountant or an artist. Every cost in
promoting an artist from the advance to recording to manufacturing to
touring is "charged" against earnings. This is the same whether you're
a major label artist or if you're doing everything yourself in your
bedroom. The difference between an artist with a contract and an
independent is that the artist never actually goes into debt and has
to pay money out of his own pocket. The worst he can do is have no
net earnings, but hopefully have a lot of fun trying. But if you're
independent, you don't get CDs to sell until you pay the pressing
plant, and you don't tour until you put gas in the VW.





--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1109507995k@trad...
>
> In article <0sbUd.8117$Ba3.3123@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
dmainc@earthlink.net writes:
>
> > Cool - then how can we get people to learn that stealing is theft?
>
> Duct-tape ear buds to their head, put in a feeding tube, and make them
> listen to hip-hop for a week.
>
We can't, Mike - despite what the US administration believes, that's
torture, and therefore repugnant to all humans...

--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1109508693k@trad...
>
> In article <pug221lfiji59gtqsafcbvu3tokeruen8n@4ax.com>
playonAT@comcast.net writes:
>
> > Tours are "handed" to people?
>
> In a sense, yes. The record company sets it up and tells the artists
> when to be where. They don't have to carry their own luggage. They
> don't have to drive themselves all night to get to the next gig. They
> get fed. And they know when they can go home.
>
Umm... Not really, Mike. Except for radio promotion tours, it's the artists,
their management, their agents and a hell of a lot of other people who put
tours together. And these days, most radio promotion tours are just the
artist and a label rep meeting and greeting radio people, not full blown
tours. If they're at the level that 'they don't have to drive all night',
it's because they're paying a bus company and a drive a large sum of money
to do it for them.

--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN