>do you think that illegaly downloading music from the internet will force
>bands back out on the road to make a living, and we will see the demise of
>the studio bound bands who can't cut it live anyway.
No, we'll see an infinite amount of tunes from people who have a
4-track/digital recording studio in their bedroom. And if people are busy
downloading free MP3's, why will they go pay to see a band?
>if it's the case that will it be easier for bands to sell their music from
a
>website, will this see the end of big record-companies, who are only
>interested in talent as financial accumen?
No, because bands have always been able to sell their music directly (via
gigs, mail order, their own label, even on home made cassettes). But what
they can't do is publicity and marketing. People in general are usually
pretty lazy - most people don't hunt for the music they listen to, books
they read, films they see, so there's no reason why they're going to trawl
through websites looking for unknown bands. OK, a huge number of people
will, but a larger number of people won't - they'll buy the encrypted tracks
of the soundtrack to the latest Disney / Warner / Fox backed film instead,
or what's on the MTV/VH-1 playlists, that will play on whatever secure
format Sony or Microsoft come up with. Sure, people will crack it and you'll
be able to get chipped players like with DVDs, Playstations, satellite
decoder cards, etc, and it will 'cost' the industry billions. But they'll
still make billions more. Please note (for Davy's benefit) this isn't a rant
against the multi-nationals, I'm just saying what's likely to happen. People
need something that filters out the crap - for us, it's having a mod taste,
for lazier people it's the mainstream media.
>if we get rid of companies with committees who decide every move an artist
>makes, will this put the musicians back in charge?
Again, no. Musicians have always had the choice. No one is forced to sign a
recording contract. People do it because they think they can gain something
out of it, or because they want to be musicians and not concerned with
booking their own gigs, hiring their own PR, risking their own money on
studio time. Same reasons a lot of us go to work for 'the man' rather than
being self-employed. I'm not saying that bands don't get screwed over by
small-print, but surely no one can have been that naieve since the 70s?
>might not happen (and other big labels use spin off profits from record
>sales, to produce all sorts of nasty shit - parts for nuclear bombs etc...)
Which don't make any money on their own? I think this one comes from
Thorn/EMI, but Thorn were already a big electronics company, producing
everything from Hi-Fi's to bomb parts when they thought (like Sony) they
might as well profit out of the software too.
>with a smaller outlay on the net, would these bands get more exposure -
like
>in the days of pirate radio, when stations didn't stick to a playlist that
>might offend potential advertisers?
Yeah, but I just think you'll have the same old 'indie'/major divide in a
different form. It'll be good for bands that have a specific audience (I'd
never of heard of the Nick Rossi Set except through this list), but the
niche labels (Detour, Twist, etc) existed anyway (not that Nick Rossi would
fit on either of those two).
______________________________________________
Faster, stronger and able to send millions
of emails in one click: the new Topica site!
http://www.topica.com/t/14
