Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (
More info?)
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:46:56 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:
>play_on wrote:
>
>> (hank alrich) wrote:
>
>> >play_on wrote:
>
>> >> CDs cost about 60 cents to make, and they sell for $17. Are you
>> >> saying that the lion's share of that money is going to the artists?
>
>> >That's funny. I bought a CD that cost me almost a grand. Had some kind
>> >of software on it. Was I ripped off?
>
>> You tell me...
>
>I was not ripped off. The value was in the software, not in the plastic
>it rode to my house.
>
>> >The cost of the plastic is irrelevant, yeah? What's the paper worth in a
>> >Hemingway novel, compared to the words on the paper?
>
>> I see your point, however *my* point was that even as the cost of
>> producing and manufacturing recordings has decreased, the cost has
>> gone up.
>
>But you select for the cheapest stuff when you say that, instead of
>thinking what an orchestra costs, what experienced and committed players
>cost, what good acoustics cost, and so forth.
Look at the current top 40 singles chart, and tell me how many of them
required grea acoustics, and orchestra and exeperience players.
Current pop music trends support the use of midi, sampling and loops.
Sure, there have been some
>inexpensively made records, always have been. Joe Jackson's first
>record, the Eurythmics, the Police's first record, are a few quickies
>that come to mind. And given how much music fits on a CD versus an LP,
>and comparing prices in constant dollars, I still feel a CD is a
>bargain.
I don't think they are a bargain, but I still buy them if it's
something I want to hear badly enough.
>I think people have gotten used to the majors offering so much stuff
>that eats kitty poop that they dismiss the potential value and cost of
>doing this stuff well. Yeah, I can record myself. But not as well as any
>of dozens of folks who hang here could do it, just because doing it
>myself divides my attention. Great records are rarely built on divided
>attentions. So as cheap as it could, it could be better with a little
>more expense, and potentially an even better return on the higher
>investment.
There seem to be two arguments here (and two levels of resentment).
First, the home studio thing -- I'm not arguing that a do-it-yourself
approach to recording is superior... it's usually not, although there
can be exceptions. Secondly, it's the current structure of the music
business, parts of whic the internet is rendering obsolete... primarly
the delivery part.
>I also think that when folks start reacting to the major labels they
>start tarrring the whole of recorded music offerings with the same
>brush. And when they start talking about how groovy is the potential of
>downloading, they fail to mention how little they are willing to pay for
>what they're already stealing.
If I like the music enough I buy the recording. I don't think I
should have to pay for downloading an old song by Aretha or the Carter
family so I can play it on my computer... when I've already purchased
it in two formats (in some cases, three formats). IMO I've already
paid double for this music. It just saves me the time of ripping the
CDs to download them.
What people don't seem to get is that for young people today, the
internet is just like a big radio, they really don't think of it as
stealing. The industry has to come to terms with this technology and
accept the fact that things have changed. Profit margins may not be
what they used to be, but that's not neccessarily a bad thing for
music.
Al
Facebook
Twitter